Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Matthew Best]

CC TV footage of the moment the attackers were shot by police has emerged today.

Here it is:



That's the Wheatsheaf pub on the left.

 

[quadraginta]

Calling some Trump supporters "a basked of deplorables" is not criticizing white nationalism.

FTFY.

It's a personal insult against white nationalists, akin to calling Islamic terrorists "despicable brownies" or something like that. This is indeed not a productive area of discussion and a divisive, destructive approach. If she was against a better candidate than Trump (which is not a tall order) I'd welcome her defeat.

You can criticize white nationalism without insulting white nationalists, not in a way an insult is usually understood anyway. In the same manner we can and should criticize Islam in a way no Muslim would have the right to feel insulted.

McHrozni

That there looks like one o' them distinctions without a difference.

 

[baron]

This. I've told Archie this ... ugh ... ten times maybe?
Neither he nor anyone else ever came up with an explanation. A lot of hand-waving and dismissals, but nothing with any substance whatsoever.

I used to think, with great naivety, that when people in authority came out with their platitudes about Islam they were simply attempting to avoid unrest and social upheaval. They must know the truth, I thought, they were just playing down the threat in the interests of the greater good. I assumed that these prime ministers and home secretaries and presidents had educated, unbiased advisers - experts in the field - who tutored them on the subjects in question, so that they spoke from a position of solid understanding.

However, it quickly became apparent that this is not the case. They are, without any exception, utterly devoid of knowledge. They have literally no idea what they are saying. There are no advisers, there is no education, there is simply a gaping void of ignorance into which they reach to pluck out sound-bites such as "This has nothing to do with Islam," and "These attacks are not representative of any religion, least of all Islam." It's an excruciating spectacle, not least because it relies on the assumption that the audience - that's you and me - are borderline retarded.

 

[Reeco]

When a Christian text includes something that sounds bad the assumption is that it means something else because we know Christians are not really murderous loons in the main. When a Muslim text includes something that sounds bad too many people do not extend the same charity....snip

Well gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[quadraginta]

The vast majority of adherents to religions have been introduced into their religion by their parents before they could read. You need to look at converts to get a clearer picture.

Funnily (or perhaps tragically) enough a disproportionately large portion of Islamic terrorism is conducted by recent converts to Islam. In other words either people read Islamic holy books and are convinced they will go to paradise if they kill infidels and convert to Islam, or youngsters want to become killers for whatever reason, read Islamic holy texts, find them readily suitable for their wants (much more to than other religions) and convert to Islam to have justification for their crimes.

There is probably a little of each, truth to be told. Neither option is good for Islam.

McHrozni

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this board in similar threads, the jihadi recruiters are actively discouraged from referring to their religious texts when they try to recruit people.

Apparently their leaders have learned from experience that the actual word of their god will deter the willing participation of their recruits.

 

[Information Analyst]

How does the UK monitor and deal with gangs?

Various methods that could not practically be scaled up do deal with significant greater numbers than already exist in that sphere. I would also hazard a guess that gangs are more "leaky" in terms of information than terrorist cells and lone wolves. No terrorist cell, for example, is going to rat on another terrorist cell to the police because they don't want the "competition."

 

[quadraginta]

I've long said that simply applying laws and rights equally to Muslims as to non-Muslims would have prevented most of the problems currently emanating from Islam in the UK. The fact is that historically, and continuing to the present day, Muslims have been granted a huge amount of leeway in both criminal and social spheres. Now we're faced with a situation that may be too far gone to address by simply applying the law equally across society.

<snip>

What "huge amount of leeway" are you referring to?

Please be specific.

 

[Vixen]

Correct, in the early days religion was an important tool in getting people to behave. About half of the ten commandments are an affirmation of religion and the other half can be summarized as "also, don't be a jerk". It's an early form of the code of laws, giving it divine background also made it more likely people will follow the code.

Not a bad thing, overall. In those days it was probably the very best one could do. It's outdated nowadays, we don't require the laws and moral standards to have a divine background, we accept them for what they are because we have come to realize they're there to make our society and our lives better (for the most part anyway).

McHrozni

True, to some extent many of the laws set out in Leviticus have been argued to do with avoiding potentially toxic foods (sea creatures scouring the seabeds, for example [I have an unpleasant allergy to prawns, myself] and behaviours, such as incest, that are a threat to future generations.

However, there is more to it than that. Various philosophers (soz, I'm hopeless at names) have focussed on the fact that as 'God is perfect', then anything that falls short of perfection is the cause of 'evil' in the world.

This isn't far away from what the fundamentalist-Islamist-jihadists believe, except, unfortunately, the Qu'ran does exhort them to kill apostates an unbelievers. It is inescapable.

 

[McHrozni]

True, to some extent many of the laws set out in Leviticus have been argued to do with avoiding potentially toxic foods (sea creatures scouring the seabeds, for example [I have an unpleasant allergy to prawns, myself] and behaviours, such as incest, that are a threat to future generations.

A large part of Judeo-Christianity is just that - an attempt at controlling the more problematic parts of society (murder, stealing, ...) with removing an occasional health hazard (aversion to pork) thrown in here and there. That's not all of the story, but it is a quite significant part.

However, there is more to it than that. Various philosophers (soz, I'm hopeless at names) have focussed on the fact that as 'God is perfect', then anything that falls short of perfection is the cause of 'evil' in the world.

This isn't far away from what the fundamentalist-Islamist-jihadists believe, except, unfortunately, the Qu'ran does exhort them to kill apostates an unbelievers. It is inescapable.

A large difference between Juedo-Christianity and Islam is that Judeo-Christianity tells its followers what is sinful or evil but doesn't tell them what to do with sinners all that often. Christianity goes a bit further and tells its followers to hate the sin but love the sinner at one point, indicating it is up to the god to penalize sin.

Islam is often different. This too is inescapable.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this board in similar threads, the jihadi recruiters are actively discouraged from referring to their religious texts when they try to recruit people.

Apparently their leaders have learned from experience that the actual word of their god will deter the willing participation of their recruits.

A necessary approach when your Word of God looks like this:

Koran, 2:143 Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.

Most wannabe killers don't have the stamina to put up with all the word salads in the said texts.

McHrozni

 

[baron]

What "huge amount of leeway" are you referring to?

Please be specific.

There's an entire thread on this, a few months old, in which I go into the topic in significant detail, although I only managed to touch on a tiny percentage of the material due to lack of time. You can go find it if you like.

 

[Information Analyst]

CC TV footage of the moment the attackers were shot by police has emerged today.

Here it is:



That's the Wheatsheaf pub on the left.

Ugh! Landscape mode...

This seems to be the actual footage:

 

[Tolls]

This. I've told Archie this ... ugh ... ten times maybe?
Neither he nor anyone else ever came up with an explanation. A lot of hand-waving and dismissals, but nothing with any substance whatsoever.

McHrozni

In any group of people, especially those feeling somehow disenfranchised or having the need to be part of something, given an outlet for being an arse, they will grab it.

In Northern Ireland for a long time that was sectarianism, involving terrorism.
In the 60s/70s a lot of people moved into the various shades of Red Brigade etc, or into right wing nuttery later on.

In different parts of the world these people latch onto the cause-du-jour for that region, so long as it involves a chance to be a "hero"...a somebody.

Do you want me to bring up Buddhist terrorism, for example?

This has been brought up with you before, several times, and you choose to dismiss any similarity with "hand-waving".

Most of those 23000? They won't blow themselves up. They have no intention of doing so. Some are just being edgy. However it's a sod to identify which is which. That's why there's 23000 of them.

 

[Liam]

I used to think, with great naivety, that when people in authority came out with their platitudes about Islam they were simply attempting to avoid unrest and social upheaval. They must know the truth, I thought, they were just playing down the threat in the interests of the greater good. I assumed that these prime ministers and home secretaries and presidents had educated, unbiased advisers - experts in the field - who tutored them on the subjects in question, so that they spoke from a position of solid understanding.

However, it quickly became apparent that this is not the case. They are, without any exception, utterly devoid of knowledge. They have literally no idea what they are saying. There are no advisers, there is no education, there is simply a gaping void of ignorance into which they reach to pluck out sound-bites such as "This has nothing to do with Islam," and "These attacks are not representative of any religion, least of all Islam." It's an excruciating spectacle, not least because it relies on the assumption that the audience - that's you and me - are borderline retarded.

Spot on, and it gets more cringe worthy every time.

With the ever increasing number of Islamic atrocities in the West one can only hope that less and less people buy into their BS.

 

[McHrozni]

In different parts of the world these people latch onto the cause-du-jour for that region, so long as it involves a chance to be a "hero"...a somebody.

Islamism is cause-du-jour in awful many places around the world nowadays - Philliphines, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, UK, Germany, Denmark, USA and others.

Care to explain why is it so prolific compared to all the others?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Can you name the person and post that did this, then?

Well I've spent several posts trying to convince someone that said all of Muslim society is at war with non-Muslim society for example.

Why? You said repeatedly people chose to justify their terrorist desires with holy texts. Now you require a terrorist group to go alongside as well? That's moving the goalposts.

No I have said repeatedly that there is a complex mish mash of factors which influence things and no one magic bullet. The above seems a bit dishonest in the light of that.

Its pretty clear that in order to take action A you must have a desire to do it and an outlet to make that happen. Social factors are important - if you don't know anybody that also does A, have never seen anyone do A and have never heard of anyone doing A then you aren't likely to do it. Psychology matters. 'People like me don't do A' is a very important driver for behaviour. As is 'people like me do A'.

After you're done explaining that, can you also explain why Islamic terrorist groups are so prolific while those belonging to other religions are rather rare? Try to do it without hand-waving and wild speculation please, something that will stand the snicker tests at least.

Well I would think at the root of things the reason for it would be a lot to do with the fact that the Middle East has been a warzone for decades in which terrorism and insurgency have become commonplace.

I think the religious aspect probably influences the way it is carried out - i.e. I'm not sure atheists would be as willing to be suicide bombers - but I don't think it particularly drives the move towards terrorism.

We are also talking about a particular snapshot in time where Islamic terrorism is dominating because by and large they are predominantly the ones with a cause currently and because of the situation in the Middle East currently. Most other conflicts are between states and therefore not terrorism by default.

Again, I don't think there was anything inherent to Irishness or even Irish Nationalism that made them terrorists in the 80s. It was the tactic they chose to employ because they thought it would be effective. Had they been Welsh instead and all other things being equal I think we would probably have been talking about the WRA.

UK had a nationalist conflict in northern Ireland, where some Irish people living there wanted their land to belong to the Republic of Ireland instead. There is no doubt strong nationalist beliefs can cause one to resort to terrorism. It has nothing to do with being Irish at all, the same thing could, did and does happen to just about every other nationality in a broadly similar situation (Austrians in South Tyrol, Brittany nationalists, Corsicans, Basques, ...).

And yet there are plenty of nationalist movements that dont resort to terrorism. It was the Irish specifically that did in this case.

However Muslims in Britain are not engaged in any sort of nationalist conflict. There is no violent movement to either declare a portion of UK independent or a part of another state and that portion of UK just happens to be populated mainly by Muslims at this time. No, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in UK are content to remain a part of the UK (or at least Scotland). They are no different from their non-Muslim neighbors in that regard. Yet they produce terrorists at a rate that overwhelms any other demographic. Can you explain why?

This was explained to you before and yet you ignore it.

McHrozni

I haven't ignored it I have repeatedly explained it. You just don't like the answer because you don't agree with it.

Maybe, but you need to expand this. They overwhelmingly choose Islam. Explain why. If it's organizations explain why Islamist terrorist organizations are so prolific compared to those of other religions, if it's something else explain that.

Good luck!

McHrozni

I just did explain it.

This. I've told Archie this ... ugh ... ten times maybe?
Neither he nor anyone else ever came up with an explanation. A lot of hand-waving and dismissals, but nothing with any substance whatsoever.

McHrozni

There have been umpteen explanations which you ignore or dismiss out of hand with goalpost moving or spurious counters. You might disagree with the response but that doesn't mean it hasn't been given.

Oh and from I see in your quote the post you agree with is littered with nonsense like 'Muslims disproproportionately resort to violence' when what they really mean is Muslims disproportionately resort to Islamic terrorism which is merely a tautology.

Did you know that Scots disproprotionately feature amongst Scottish Nationalists too? And Irish amongst Irish Republican terrorism?

Well gee, I wonder why that is.

I suggested why this is. Do you have a better answer?

A necessary approach when your Word of God looks like this:

Koran, 2:143 Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.

Most wannabe killers don't have the stamina to put up with all the word salads in the said texts.

McHrozni

SEE!! It's bloody incoherent! And you are the one who keeps harping on about the most straightforward interpretation and what the text says. It says nothing. The above is meaningless nonsense. There is no interpretation of that which makes sense or is obvious unless you come to it with preconceived notions.

It says Allah is merciful therefore we should show mercy and kindness to others.

It says appointed a middle nation therefore we must have our own country just for us

It says my faith should not be in vain so I must devote my life to spreading Islam and killing non-believers.

It's all utter *********. It all is.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In any group of people, especially those feeling somehow disenfranchised or having the need to be part of something, given an outlet for being an arse, they will grab it.

In Northern Ireland for a long time that was sectarianism, involving terrorism.
In the 60s/70s a lot of people moved into the various shades of Red Brigade etc, or into right wing nuttery later on.

In different parts of the world these people latch onto the cause-du-jour for that region, so long as it involves a chance to be a "hero"...a somebody.

Do you want me to bring up Buddhist terrorism, for example?

This has been brought up with you before, several times, and you choose to dismiss any similarity with "hand-waving".

Most of those 23000? They won't blow themselves up. They have no intention of doing so. Some are just being edgy. However it's a sod to identify which is which. That's why there's 23000 of them.

Thank You. A sane voice.

 

[Darat]

Oh, so you are willing to see various ideologies proscribed.

Who isn't?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Islamism is cause-du-jour in awful many places around the world nowadays - Philliphines, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, UK, Germany, Denmark, USA and others.

Care to explain why is it so prolific compared to all the others?

McHrozni

Sorry Islamism is not a cause du jour in the UK at all and its far from prolific. Your wordchoice reveals your intentions in most of your posts on the topic.

Islamism is a tiny pocket of cultish *****ticks in the UK. And Germany. And most of those countries.

Small groups can do a lot of damage if they put their minds to it in one off circumstances but that doesn't make them prolific.

More people in the UK will die from right wing ******** than the terrorists will ever dream of killing.

 

[Darat]

What "huge amount of leeway" are you referring to?

Please be specific.

He can't be as it isn't true.