Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Darat]

Well gee, I wonder why that is.

Ignorance and bigotry seems to provide a good answer.

 

[McHrozni]

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.

A link to the offending post would be helpful.

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'.

This is a very important reason why I want Muslims to make a loud and very visible effort to reject and detest the terrorists. Currently many Islamic terrorists are seen as heroes by a sufficient portion of their community to stimulate recruitment of more terrorists.

That said, your claims of a mish-mash of factors are pure speculation. There is one and only one consistent factor: Islamic supremacism contained in Islamic holy texts, often cited by terrorists.

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.

If that was a significant you'd expect Christian terrorists in UK striking Muslims over repression of Christians in Egypt by Muslims or incidents similar to that. Since that is not observed we can conclude this speculation of yours is just that, a baseless speculation that is to be derisively laughed at.

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.

Maybe a lot of it is recidivism, but it is at least as probable causality is reversed, that the situation in the Middle East is a product of Islam. We don't see many peaceful and stable Islamic countries nowadays and Islamist parties are always a bad sign. What makes you think problems with Islam outside of Middle East are a product of events of Middle East? How can you tell with any degree of certainty it's not the other way around? There is plenty circumstantial evidence that's the case, is there anything to go the other way?

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.

Sure. But unless you can show a demographic in UK or elsewhere in Europe is trying to gain independence, which has nothing to do with their faith and that demographic just happens to contain a lot of Muslims and terrorism conducted by Muslims is due to them belonging to said demographic, this is issue is DOA.

In reality the issue isn't just dead, it was hung, drawn, quartered, shot and driven over by a Buick. Twice.

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

Really? I must've missed it. Linky?

I just did explain it.

With what? All you did is drawn a comparison between being Muslim and being Irish, which is ludicrous on the first glance and comes steadily worse the more you examine it in detail. That is not an explanation in any sense of the word I'm familiar with.

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.

You're the one that added Islamic there as a requirement, not me. A classic straw-man. Pass.

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

SEE!! It's bloody incoherent! And you are the one who keeps harping on about the most straightforward interpretation and what the text says.

I really don't see what's the problem here. Not all interpretations are equally hard to deduct if you read the text. It's not all that a concept to grasp you know.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Sorry Islamism is not a cause du jour in the UK at all and its far from prolific.

Well if you're new claiming your entire argument always was a pair of dingo kidneys, I'm fine with that.

Better luck next time I guess.

McHrozni

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

I also get the impression, and think it's probably true, that radical Islamist terrorists are disproportionately recent converts, but that doesn't necessarily mean the converse is true; that converts are disproportionately radical. Might be true, but it might be that, proportionately, most converts to Islam are just ordinary peaceable people we never hear about.

Either way I think it unlikely that those who convert and become radicalised do so because they read any holy texts. I expect watching violent videos is more likely. The sort of person who gets radicalised seems typically to be a frustrated young guy, often a petty criminal, has low self esteem, in a seeming dead end life and gets little respect. Just the sort to be impressed by loud, confident guys who don't take any crap, have seemingly cleaned up their lives and have a clear sense of purpose and a gleam of revenge and righteous anger in their eyes. Be like them and life is a short but glorious video game where you get to take revenge on everything which frustrates you, all your sins are instantly forgiven and you leave this world as a hero and arrive in paradise not only with a clean slate but with your own personal harem in perpetuity. It's quite an offer. The best you think you'll ever get, if you're dumb enough to believe it.

 

[baron]

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

Stop talking garbage.

 

[baron]

Either way I think it unlikely that those who convert and become radicalised do so because they read any holy texts. I expect watching violent videos is more likely. The sort of person who gets radicalised seems typically to be a frustrated young guy, often a petty criminal, has low self esteem, in a seeming dead end life and gets little respect.

Does anyone remember when the term 'radical' meant indulging in incisive thought, proposing fresh ideas and spurning tradition in favour of progressive reform? Me too, it wasn't so very long ago. Then Islam happened in the UK and suddenly the word is synonymous with 'blowing up 23 kids at a concert' or 'crushing dozens of shoppers under the wheels of a speeding vehicle."

And this happens without a murmur of protest, as if it's the most natural thing in the world. It's what happens when Islamic apologetics rots minds. The only thing a Muslim needs to do, we are told, to attain the gold star of good citizenship is refrain from chopping off anybody's head and murdering children. If they manage to clear this ground-level bar then they not a 'radical', they are not a threat and everything is OK.

This level of self-despising, patronising, obsequious and tub-thumpingly immoral apologetics infuriates me. It is pathetic beyond words.

 

[The Don]

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

Please be specific.

Well it's a fact* that large parts of the UK are no-go areas where the police fear to tread and where Sharia law is the de-facto law of the land. It's also true that Muslims can say whatever they like and suffer no consequences** while law-abiding British Christians are arrested merely for reading Winston Churchill's speeches***.


* - fact in that it is not actually true but it is widely reported in rags like the Daily Express, Daily Mail and echoed by the right wing
** - apart from arrest and imprisonment
*** - except that he wasn't arrested for that, he was arrested for being a public nuisance for refusing to move off private property when asked to do so by the police.

 

[3point14]

If it is a war - and I have no doubt it is - then you have to fight back.

This war, according to the stats above, is currently costing fewer lives than are badly fitted stair risers.

The only option, the only thing to do that doesn't play into the hands of the very few religious loons who, per capita, probably gain more column inches than anything else ever, is nothing. Any change in legislation, any restriction on movement or rights of the innocent (us) is their victory.

Yes, the security and law enforcement entities need to investigate, but I will not change one inch of how I live my life in response to these attacks because, quote honestly, **** em, I will not allow them to change the way I live my life and I do not want them to change the way this country is run.

Once the death toll exceeds that of accidental death, I'm willing to talk about it, but as is, I'm ignoring the little, religious, delusional loons because that's what they don't want.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Does anyone remember when the term 'radical' meant indulging in incisive thought, proposing fresh ideas and spurning tradition in favour of progressive reform? Me too, it wasn't so very long ago. Then Islam happened in the UK and suddenly the word is synonymous with 'blowing up 23 kids at a concert' or 'crushing dozens of shoppers under the wheels of a speeding vehicle."

And this happens without a murmur of protest, as if it's the most natural thing in the world.

c.f. complaints about the appropriation of 'Gay'.

It's what happens when Islamic apologetics rots minds.

No, it isn't. It's just a label, for a thing. And it's been used to describe extremists, including violent extremists, for a long time. Certainly long before Muslim extremists gained our attention. The 1970s communist terrorist groups in Europe were 'radicals' too. So it's not, as you seem to wish to imply, some pussyfooting term appropriated especially to diminish the evil of the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism.

 

[baron]

c.f. complaints about the appropriation of 'Gay'.


No, it isn't. It's just a label, for a thing. And it's been used to describe extremists, including violent extremists, for a long time. Certainly long before Muslim extremists gained our attention. The 1970s communist terrorist groups in Europe were 'radicals' too. So it's not, as you seem to wish to imply, some pussyfooting term appropriated especially to diminish the evil of the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism.

That is not the case. Radical groups were called radicals, terrorists were called terrorists, and there was no lowering of the bar of acceptable behaviour that resulted in anybody not actively involved in mass murder to be considered good citizens purely on that basis.

 

[baron]

Yes, the security and law enforcement entities need to investigate, but I will not change one inch of how I live my life in response to these attacks because, quote honestly, **** em, I will not allow them to change the way I live my life...

No air travel and concerts for you then.

 

[Information Analyst]

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?

You mean like communist-inspired terrorism in the 1960s-1980s? Or fascist-inspired terrorism, for that matter?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A link to the offending post would be helpful.

I have no idea how to link to a specific post so I hope this works.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11872284&postcount=400

This is a very important reason why I want Muslims to make a loud and very visible effort to reject and detest the terrorists. Currently many Islamic terrorists are seen as heroes by a sufficient portion of their community to stimulate recruitment of more terrorists.

Many Muslims are already doing this. The loudness and visibility is not always within their control if the media don't show it.

And yes, finding ways to stop new recruits is probably the solution. But again you are failing to differentiate between Muslims as a whole and the subset of Muslims which are at risk of being recruited. And as we both agree there is also a subset of Non-Muslims who are being converted to these dangerous and abhorrent ideas.

That said, your claims of a mish-mash of factors are pure speculation. There is one and only one consistent factor: Islamic supremacism contained in Islamic holy texts, often cited by terrorists.

No the mish mash of factors is based on an understanding of motivation and society and is all founded in well established theory. Trying to claim one primary reason for anything is pretty silly.

Your explanation also doesn't fit with the data. Since nothing has changed about the motivating factor you claim in centuries and yet the nature of Islamic terrorism clearly has. If nothing changes in the cause and yet the effect does change then clearly there are other factors at work.

Perhaps you would like to offer your own theory as to why Muslims waited until precisely now to start executing their campaign of blowing up children in the UK when they've been being told explicitly to do it for centuries?

If that was a significant you'd expect Christian terrorists in UK striking Muslims over repression of Christians in Egypt by Muslims or incidents similar to that. Since that is not observed we can conclude this speculation of yours is just that, a baseless speculation that is to be derisively laughed at.

No you wouldn't expect that at all and you've just pulled that out your backside.

Maybe a lot of it is recidivism, but it is at least as probable causality is reversed, that the situation in the Middle East is a product of Islam. We don't see many peaceful and stable Islamic countries nowadays and Islamist parties are always a bad sign. What makes you think problems with Islam outside of Middle East are a product of events of Middle East? How can you tell with any degree of certainty it's not the other way around? There is plenty circumstantial evidence that's the case, is there anything to go the other way?

Well we don't have comparable control groups so we have to look at situations and draw inferences but you aren't seriously asking me to justify a claim that turning a country into a long-term warzone is going to have some serious effects on the population are you?

Your argument seems to rely an awful lot on ignoring or denying what we know about human psychology. Parts of Africa might be the best comparisons we have where there is ongoing civil war or tribal conflicts. These things definitely make people do things they wouldn't otherwise do if they happened to grow up in a leafy suburb of San Diego for example.

Equally we have seen that non Middle Eastern majority Muslim countries have largely been as peaceful as their neighbours for most of history and where we have seen issues its for the very reason that these horrible ideas have found a foothold and infected some small number of the population. But that has been an exporting and promotion of an ideology it's not something that magically occurred in these places by reading the texts a bit more.

Sure. But unless you can show a demographic in UK or elsewhere in Europe is trying to gain independence, which has nothing to do with their faith and that demographic just happens to contain a lot of Muslims and terrorism conducted by Muslims is due to them belonging to said demographic, this is issue is DOA.

I have no idea what you mean here and don't see how it counters anything I have said. It sounds like you are starting to suggest that some terrorism is OK as long as its to promote nationalism but I'm sure that's not what you mean.

My argument has nothing to do with the objective of the acts but the process by which you determine the causality. And yes when the IRA was in its heyday we did have people who assumed that all Irish people were potential terrorists and they were wrong to do so.

And yet being Irish was the one and only one common thread to use your argument.

In reality the issue isn't just dead, it was hung, drawn, quartered, shot and driven over by a Buick. Twice.

Because you've invented a strawman to destroy

Really? I must've missed it. Linky?

I don't believe you.

With what? All you did is drawn a comparison between being Muslim and being Irish, which is ludicrous on the first glance and comes steadily worse the more you examine it in detail. That is not an explanation in any sense of the word I'm familiar with.

This is the age old tactic of acting dumb by trying to suggest that a comparison of logic is actually a comparison of the two examples. It's a strawman nonsense. I have not drawn any comparison between being Muslim and being Irish I have pointed out that the method by which you are determining the root cause is flawed. You have yet to actually engage with that point and offer any justification for your approach you just keep highlighting the irrelevant differences between your assessment of the objectives of the terrorists.

You're the one that added Islamic there as a requirement, not me. A classic straw-man. Pass.

Because Muslims are NOT more violent than non-Muslims and there is no evidence to suggest there is. What you and others do is define a specific kind of violence to get your data and then make sloppy generalisations based on that and think it means something important

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

I really don't see what's the problem here. Not all interpretations are equally hard to deduct if you read the text. It's not all that a concept to grasp you know.
McHrozni

Word salad has meaning when you want it to and not when you don't? I don't know what the passage you posted means. Do you? Care to explain it? Show me how you know that to be the most reasonable interpretation?

Because I think that entire passage is meaningless ********* in a meaningless ********* book.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well if you're new claiming your entire argument always was a pair of dingo kidneys, I'm fine with that.

Better luck next time I guess.

McHrozni

Islamism is a thing that exists and has an appeal to a tiny subset of people in whatever country they are in just like a whole load of other stupid ideas. Your hyperbole and gross overexaggeration of its potency is ridiculous and I submit that it is designed for no other reason that to promote a fear of Muslims.

 

[Reeco]

This war, according to the stats above, is currently costing fewer lives than are badly fitted stair risers.

The only option, the only thing to do that doesn't play into the hands of the very few religious loons who, per capita, probably gain more column inches than anything else ever, is nothing. Any change in legislation, any restriction on movement or rights of the innocent (us) is their victory.

Yes, the security and law enforcement entities need to investigate, but I will not change one inch of how I live my life in response to these attacks because, quote honestly, **** em, I will not allow them to change the way I live my life and I do not want them to change the way this country is run.

Once the death toll exceeds that of accidental death, I'm willing to talk about it, but as is, I'm ignoring the little, religious, delusional loons because that's what they don't want.

I think you may start to become concerned long before terror attacks are killing 46 people every day in the UK alone.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Not worth repeating?

Yeah. Figures.

 

[baron]

Not worth repeating?

Yeah. Figures.

Why would I spend hours repeating information that I've already written?

Oh look, I found the thread. Took me ten seconds.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318502&page=2

If you have anything to contribute then I suggest you use that thread rather than derailing this one further.

 

[quadraginta]

Why would I spend hours repeating information that I've already written?

Oh look, I found the thread. Took me ten seconds.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318502&page=2

Okay. I took the time to read the entire page you linked to, None of the three comments you have on that page out of the forty there have any relationship whatsoever to any "huge amount of leeway" given to Muslims in the U.K., or even anything remotely connected to that.

If that's the best ya got then give it up. Just more hot air.

If you have anything to contribute then I suggest you use that thread rather than derailing this one further.

You brought it up. All I did was ask what you meant by it.

Own the derail. (If such it is.) It's yours from birth.

 

[baron]

Okay. I took the time to read the entire page you linked to, None of the three comments you have on that page out of the forty there have any relationship whatsoever to any "huge amount of leeway" given to Muslims in the U.K., or even anything remotely connected to that.

What are you talking about? There are 25+ pages in that thread. Do you want me to include a link to every single page? I linked to page 2 because that's where the relevant conversation starts. Just as I thought, reading the information is too much trouble for you. Ah well, never mind.

 

[quadraginta]

What are you talking about? There are 25+ pages in that thread. Do you want me to include a link to every single page? I linked to page 2 because that's where the relevant conversation starts. Just as I thought, reading the information is too much trouble for you. Ah well, never mind.

Why on Earth do you expect me to wade through nearly four hundred posts of mostly bigoted rants interspersed with contributions from Aisha regularly and roundly handing said bigots their asses on a plate (as she never fails to do) just on the off chance that you might have actually offered a post with some real content?

If you can't be bothered to dredge up your own work to support your own wild claims, then why in the hell should I wade through all that crap for you? You can link to a single post as easily as to a single page.

You're the one making the claim. You show the evidence.

I expect that there is nothing worthwhile to show, which explains your evasiveness.