• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

Darat said:
"our culture"? Defined by who and who is this "our"?
Click to expand...

People who believe women should have equal rights, enjoy social freedom, generally advocate UK law, and usually have a fair amount of tolerance for other cultures, enjoy/tolerate western/British traditions and pursuits without being condemned for it - things that are generally defined as traditionally 'British'.

Basically, nobody should be forcing others to drink alcohol, wear short skirts, or celebrate Christmas, but neither should an immigrant or religious extremist be killing people because they enjoy those things.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
People who believe women should have equal rights, enjoy social freedom, generally advocate UK law, and usually have a fair amount of tolerance for other cultures, enjoy/tolerate western/British traditions and pursuits without being condemned for it - things that are generally defined as traditionally 'British'.

Basically, nobody should be forcing others to drink alcohol, wear short skirts, or celebrate Christmas, but neither should an immigrant or religious extremist be killing people because they enjoy those things.
Click to expand...


Stop being intolerant!
:p
 
Giordano said:
A subset of believers become convinced that an imaginary being has ordered them to kill other people. Most other followers of the religion do not agree. That's crazy enough in my book. It is not typically legally insane because there are too many people in society as a whole who share the first part of the fantasy- an imaginary being cars what they do and will reward them if the do certain things.
Click to expand...

That works if you start from the logical fallacy of 'false premise'.
 
Giordano said:
Core elements of both sides of the Troubles believed that they were being treated unfairly by the other side for religious reasons and that their religions were the basis and that their religions were under attack. Their goal, both Catholic and Protestant, was to implement or maintain a political structure that protected their religion.

Both sides routinely described religion as a key element in their motivation and in how they demarcated the conflict.

“I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and a member of this parliament afterwards… All I boast is that we have a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state.”
Sir James Craig, Northern Ireland prime minister, 1934

“By mid-December 1971, 1576 people had been arrested by the army under the Special Powers Act, virtually all of them Catholic.”
Sunday Times, 1972

“Probably the greater influence on me, just in regard to the development of my own politics, were obviously the pogroms. I was living in Belfast when Loyalists bombed McGuirk’s Bar and 15 Catholics were killed. On reflection I know that had a substantial impact on me because some of the people were friends and neighbours. And of course the massacre in Derry, Bloody Sunday, had a massive influence on me.”
Bobby Storey, IRA leader

“We were led to believe that only a minority of Catholics supported violence. To Protestants the hunger strike showed that Catholics were prepared to support the gunmen who murdered their fellow citizens.”
Frank Millar, Official Unionist Party

“Catholics don’t want a share in the government of Northern Ireland. They want Northern Ireland to be destroyed and to have a united Ireland. Even if they were to join a government, it’s only until such a time as they can destroy the government and the state. The ordinary Ulsterman is not going
to surrender to the IRA… We have not only the right but the duty to kill them before they kill me, my family and others.”
Ian Paisley, DUP leader

And here is a "sympathetic" statement saying the Catholics might even be as good as the Protestants some day. But consider what it is really stating about the division in Northern Ireland:
“It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they [Catholics] will refuse to have 18 children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless and lives in the most ghastly hovel he will rear 18 children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consideration and kindness they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church.”
Terence O’Neill, 1969

“On these unfortunate beings the fury of the Orange Specials and Orange mobs falls daily and nightly. These people have committed no offence unless it is an offence to be born a Catholic… On the simple charge of being Catholic, hundreds of families are being continually driven from their houses… In these operations the Specials provide the petrol, firearms and immunity from prosecution.”
Manchester Guardian, May 1921

And here is a recent statement from the Catholic Chruch as to how they see the discussion in this thread:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/fait...ate-muslim-irish-republican-army-was-catholic
Click to expand...

That is sectarianism. An true equivalent is possibly, the Sunni versus the Shi-ites. However, they are all Islamist.

OK so in C15 Roman Catholics versus Protestants was religious terrorism on a mass scale throughout north western europe.

You could say that Islam, being 700 years younger, is undergoing a similar violent reformation as Christianity did.

However, how this is is relevant to Westminster Bridge, Manchester and now, London Bridge, I struggle to understand.
 
Darat said:
No it is not easy enough, nor could it be done quickly and why just London? Nothing to stop such an attack taking place somewhere like say Warrington.
Click to expand...

It's the copycat aspect. Perhaps all major city centres along popular thoroughfares should have simple concrete posts (or reinforced steel)constructed say every six feet along the pavement edge (as we see on street corners), so people can still cross, but cars couldn't mount the pavement far.

I've lost count the number of times I've strolled across London Bridge. It's all too close to home.
 
Darat said:
Strange the Queen wasn't accused of the same when she trotted up just days after...

From various reports many of the injured victims still in hospital were over the moon that she came to visit them. I don't care if that meant she also got good PR, and it seems a lack of empathy by those that criticise her "PR stunt" that they would rather her get no good PR and the kids not have the joy of meeting her.
Click to expand...

It's Ma'am's role to visit disaster victims in hospital. They are her subjects.

Sure, it's nice of Ariane to drop by, but were all the cameras and makeup department necessary?

I'll bet Gary Barlow also visited but kept it private.

I am not criticising Ariana doing what she does, it just comes across as tacky.

There were 22 victims who died in Manchester and >64 injured. It is about them. Focussing on the celebrities trivialises their great trauma IMV.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Great Wall of text - doesn't change the facts in the slightest. The clue is even in the name "Irish REPUBLICAN Army". That either side were usually either predominantly Catholic or Protestant was down to historic circumstances, NOT the prime motivation for what the IRA did; they were purely focussed on the unification of Ireland - it was not a religious struggle. Looks like your hilighter missed this from the quote you posted: "They want Northern Ireland to be destroyed and to have a united Ireland". Of course that comes from Protestant Reverend and Unionist leader Ian Paisley, so it's a bit heavy on the drama, but once again - although religion was a large part of the troubles, the IRA were not carrying out attacks based on their religious beliefs or motivations, but in order to force the British Government to withdraw from Northern Ireland, and thus unite Ireland.
Click to expand...

Sometimes walls of text are required to provide a large amount of information. Don't dismiss them so easily because they take time to read and think about.

I include many groups on both sides of the Troubles in the Christian Terrorist category. If you want to insist that only groups that include religion in their name are truly religiously motivated, try this one out: The Ulster Protestant Volunteers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Protestant_Volunteers

It is human, but ultimately silly, to try to find some line to draw to justify that one group is motivated by politics and another by religion. This is often just to allow people to draw a line that makes them feel a bit better and convince them that their side would never do such an awful thing. But people are much the same everywhere, good and bad, and this has been proven repeatedly in history. Politics and religion are particularly closely intertwined. Yet I've seen over and over again tenuous arguments that seek to whitewash one religion or another, and to find some way to separate the evil people from a possible religious motivation- if one feels linked oneself to that religion (believer or culturally). In contrast, links of an opposing cause to another religion are, of course, true and binding.

And ultimately, what is the point? One group of children are killed by a politically motivated bomb whereas another group of children are killed by a religiously motivated bomb? Do they or their families care? They are dead children no matter what, killed by fanatics who are fighting for an ideology that allowed the terrorist to demonize the other side and disregard the inherent evil of the act. Terrorists supported by other fanatics who incited them, and provided rationale and support. And in both cases, political and religious, most of the followers of the broader political/religious cause are horrified by the murderous terrorists who claim to be their fellows.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is sectarianism. An true equivalent is possibly, the Sunni versus the Shi-ites. However, they are all Islamist.

OK so in C15 Roman Catholics versus Protestants was religious terrorism on a mass scale throughout north western europe. You could say that Islam, being 700 years younger, is undergoing a similar violent reformation as Christianity did. However, how this is is relevant to Westminster Bridge, Manchester and now, London Bridge, I struggle to understand.
Click to expand...

I'll explain it. It is touching to think that events of a few hundred years ago will never occur again. One might like to think that Christianity has grown out of this, (a bit difficult to maintain given tat these types of actions do occur still, if currently less officially sanctioned than before). But as an inspection of history unfortunately proves, these things occur again and again and no country, group, or ideology is truly immune from being hijacked for evil. It is not an inevitable march of moral progress.

Just a world of warning: believing "Oh that would never happen again here, or with my group of people" is a dangerous way of thinking. One must always be alert for evil in any context.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Sometimes walls of text are required to provide a large amount of information. Don't dismiss them so easily because they take time to read and think about.

I include many groups on both sides of the Troubles in the Christian Terrorist category. If you want to insist that only groups that include religion in their name are truly religiously motivated, try this one out: The Ulster Protestant Volunteers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Protestant_Volunteers

It is human, but ultimately silly, to try to find some line to draw to justify that one group is motivated by politics and another by religion. This is often just to allow people to draw a line that makes them feel a bit better and convince them that their side would never do such an awful thing. But people are much the same everywhere, good and bad, and this has been proven repeatedly in history. Politics and religion are particularly closely intertwined. Yet I've seen over and over again tenuous arguments that seek to whitewash one religion or another, and to find some way to separate the evil people from a possible religious motivation- if one feels linked oneself to that religion (believer or culturally). In contrast, links of an opposing cause to another religion are, of course, true and binding.

And ultimately, what is the point? One group of children are killed by a politically motivated bomb whereas another group of children are killed by a religiously motivated bomb? Do they or their families care? They are dead children no matter what, killed by fanatics who are fighting for an ideology that allowed the terrorist to demonize the other side and disregard the inherent evil of the act. Terrorists supported by other fanatics who incited them, and provided rationale and support. And in both cases, political and religious, most of the followers of the broader political/religious cause are horrified by the murderous terrorists who claim to be their fellows.
Click to expand...


You cannot shoehorn the IRA issue into your fond bugbear of 'religious terrorism'. We can see the IRA were a political movement, as even the UK government accepted its members were political prisoners and jailed them in separate internment camps to ordinary HM Prisons.

The IRA acts of terror were an abomination. However, they did try to phone a warning in advance and aimed for political buildings, although, many civilians and off-duty soldiers were unlawfully killed.

It s a far cry from a jihadist running down a busy tourist part of London slashing the throats of young woman, as well as everybody else in their path, having run over people walking along a pavement, enjoying a balmy summer evening out along London's enbankment area.

It doesn't work.
 
Vixen said:
It's easy enough to install concrete blocks to prevent cars mounting the pavement. I am surprised that after the Westminster Bridge attack they didn't immediately do this to make other Central London bridges secure from pedestrians being mown down, given what happened in Nice, Berlin and Stockholm.

It won't stop terrorism, but it's a start.
Click to expand...
I have an even simpler solution. Suspend the London congestion charge, and traffic again comes to a grinding halt. ;)
 
baron said:
Sure, it's not like he's had multiple attempts on his life, countless assaults, six Osman warnings, a terrorist cell arrested on their way to kill him and his associates with pipe bombs, several hundred death threats against his family and kids, armed gangs turn up at his family home or anything like that.
Click to expand...
I don't see how using a pseudonym really helps him here. His face is all over the interwebs.

baron said:
You don't know anything about him, that much is clear.
Click to expand...
He joined the BNP, then founded the EDL and then founded the Britain First Party. It's just a big coincidence that he happens to be in racist places?
 
Giordano said:
Sometimes walls of text are required to provide a large amount of information. Don't dismiss them so easily because they take time to read and think about.

I include many groups on both sides of the Troubles in the Christian Terrorist category. If you want to insist that only groups that include religion in their name are truly religiously motivated, try this one out: The Ulster Protestant Volunteers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Protestant_Volunteers

It is human, but ultimately silly, to try to find some line to draw to justify that one group is motivated by politics and another by religion. This is often just to allow people to draw a line that makes them feel a bit better and convince them that their side would never do such an awful thing. But people are much the same everywhere, good and bad, and this has been proven repeatedly in history. Politics and religion are particularly closely intertwined. Yet I've seen over and over again tenuous arguments that seek to whitewash one religion or another, and to find some way to separate the evil people from a possible religious motivation- if one feels linked oneself to that religion (believer or culturally). In contrast, links of an opposing cause to another religion are, of course, true and binding.

And ultimately, what is the point? One group of children are killed by a politically motivated bomb whereas another group of children are killed by a religiously motivated bomb? Do they or their families care? They are dead children no matter what, killed by fanatics who are fighting for an ideology that allowed the terrorist to demonize the other side and disregard the inherent evil of the act. Terrorists supported by other fanatics who incited them, and provided rationale and support. And in both cases, political and religious, most of the followers of the broader political/religious cause are horrified by the murderous terrorists who claim to be their fellows.
Click to expand...

The end result is that people die, yes. However, you and others made comparisons between IS and the IRA as if to say "I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this - the IRA were carrying out Christian Terrorism for years" - which is factually incorrect. The IRA declared war on Britain as "Imperialist Occupiers". Their motivation was political.
 
Giordano said:
One important point in determining what to do about the terrorism is to be well aware of what the terrorists seek to accomplish. It is pretty clear that one major goal of the terrorists is to spur Western societies into "cracking down" on all Muslims: To mount military attacks that kill indiscriminately (yes, ironic, but true). To denounce Muslims as a whole as dangerous evil people. To take away from Muslims as a group rights other groups have. To expel Muslims as a group. In fact, to limit Muslim immigration. The terrorists know that these actions dramatically increase their supporter base. This is a core feature of all guerrilla warfare. I can't vouch for their accuracy but there were a number of reports that ISIS was very happy that Trump was elected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-trumps-election-win/?utm_term=.58bb6b7cfbb4
Why do you think that might be true?
Click to expand...
There's no logic to Muslims mounting attacks on western nations so these western nations will begin cracking down on Muslims. It presumes that Islamic cultures were coexisting with European Christian cultures until these Islamic terrorists decided they wanted to be hated and began provoking European Christians. Why would these extremists want western nations to indiscriminately kill them? Why do they want to be denounced as a whole as dangerous evil people? Why do they want to have their rights taken away? Why do they want to be expelled?

That doesn't make any sense. Say what you will about evil people and vile ideology and what not but these people are not thinking illogically. They don't hate without any reason. Assigning illogical motives to them doesn't help us understand them. If we don't understand why they're doing what they do we will never be able to stop them.
 
Giordano said:
I'll explain it. It is touching to think that events of a few hundred years ago will never occur again. One might like to think that Christianity has grown out of this, (a bit difficult to maintain given tat these types of actions do occur still, if currently less officially sanctioned than before). But as an inspection of history unfortunately proves, these things occur again and again and no country, group, or ideology is truly immune from being hijacked for evil. It is not an inevitable march of moral progress.

Just a world of warning: believing "Oh that would never happen again here, or with my group of people" is a dangerous way of thinking. One must always be alert for evil in any context.
Click to expand...

That's a straw man as I never said, 'Christian terrorism can never happen again'.

It happened some 500 years in the past and it is silly to use Christianity as an example of 'religious terrorism', just because you hate all religions.
 
Darat said:
"our culture"? Defined by who and who is this "our"?
Click to expand...

To Aetius, now consul for the third time: the groans of the Britons." And again a little further, thus:—"The barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea throws us back on the barbarians: thus two modes of death await us, we are either slain or drowned"
Click to expand...
Groans of the Britons, 446AD.

Plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
No, they don't. I posted earlier about the IRA - they were politically motivated, and while religion was mixed into the whole mess, it wasn't the driver behind their campaign:

"The Irish Republican Army (IRA) is any of several armed movements in Ireland in the 20th and 21st centuries dedicated to Irish republicanism, the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic. It was also characterised by the belief that political violence was necessary to achieve that goal."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

Calling the IRA 'Christian Terrorists' is flat-out wrong, and smacks of apology I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten that various Protestant Loyalist/Unionist paramilitary groups absolutely targeted Catholics for their religion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom