Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[McHrozni]

The Quran and Islam are wrong about pretty much everything in it as a description of reality. People who choose to follow it in my opinion are misguided misinformed and deluded. what they are not is murderers waiting to happen.

Near as I can tell no one is claiming that. The claim is that people who opt to follow Quran and Islam are more likely to become murderers as a result of these texts and beliefs than an (hypothetical) otherwise identical person who is not following Quran and Islam.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wait... Thatcher wasn't a conviction politician? And, btw, Corbyn is criticized for sharing a stage with terrorist-supporters, not 'merely' being in a March with them - he was a joint headliner many, many times.

No. he was criticised on the front page of a rag yesterday because some Islamists ATTENDED his rally as far as I could see. It's pathetic really and if we are going to talk about 'intellectual dishonesty' then this idea that Corbyn supports Jihadis attacking the UK is surely near the top of the list.

 

[baron]

According to the papers it was, 'Skud, Skud, Tel Aviv'.

So you believe what you read in the tabloids?

Oh, I stand corrected. They were only calling for the Jews to be bombed! That's perfectly OK then.

I was once in a crowd of Aston Villa fans accusing of Big Fat Ron of liking unnatural sex. Does that make me a Villa fan. Does it make me foul-mouthed? Does it mean I approve of it?

If you deliberately joined them and addressed them and said nothing about their behaviour then yes, it does.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Near as I can tell no one is claiming that. The claim is that people who opt to follow Quran and Islam are more likely to become murderers as a result of these texts and beliefs than an (hypothetical) otherwise identical person who is not following Quran and Islam.

McHrozni

Some people ARE claiming that though. Otherwise why suggest all these actions against Muslims as a whole?

And in the absence of a hypothetical otherwise identical person and sound data to support the above assertion we should probably not throw the accusation around willy nilly and claim intellectual dishonesty from those who don't jump to do so.

I'll check if I can find figures later but I would assume that, in fact, on average Muslims in the UK are less likely to be murderers than followers of at least some other religions.

 

[baron]

This is what we have to change, also via criticism of islam and empowering liberal imams. Now, not when muslims become important minorities and no way back possible (an important possibility, 'demographic predictions are notoriously imprecise' cuts both ways, we should be prepared for the worst). Any other solution is dhimmitude by our own choice, very probably leading at least to an Europe without some modern values (even to a 'second golden Age' of Islam). At the beginning we will probably witness more Islamic violence but on long term there are good chances to 'tame' Islam.

I recommend Douglas Murray's book 'The Strange Death of Europe'.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's nonsense. In Judaism it was believed that when you die you go to a limbo land called 'Sheol'. Then there are the various 'seven heavens' for the enlightened.

In Christianity, you are doomed to die unless you believe in Christ. So, 'the wages of sin is death', is not a call to kill anyone, as you claim. It is an edict that those who believe in Him will have everlasting life. Those who do not remain subject to sin, disease, death and decay.

Why are you trying to equate Christianity with IS-terrorism? It is getting tiresome.

This is a great example of the double standards applied to Islam and Christianity. 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 and insist that it obviously does mean something terrible because we do not have the same charitable archetype to refer to.

The difference is not with the text, the difference is with the people who use the text to justify their abhorrent actions.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I would just like to say that we're finally beginning to see the early stages of what is the only possible solution to Islamic terrorism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lerics-islam-isis-burial-khuram-a7776861.html

If this is more than a green shot, if the Muslim really begin to show their distaste towards Islamists in a strong and meaningful way, then maybe we can avoid disaster altogether.

McHrozni

When you say 'finally beginning to see he early stages of a solution' do you mean that finally the right wing press are reporting the things that have been going on for ages? This news is nothing new.

 

[baron]

This is a great example of the double standards applied to Islam and Christianity. 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 and insist that it obviously does mean something terrible because we do not have the same charitable archetype to refer to.

The difference is not with the text, the difference is with the people who use the text to justify their abhorrent actions.

From someone who I would bet a great deal of money has read neither the Bible nor the Koran, nor any part of either.

 

[McHrozni]

Some people ARE claiming that though.

Yes, but some Muslims also ARE mass murderers waiting to happen too. If you can understand why you can't generalize that too all Muslims you should be able to understand why you can't generalize all who criticize Islam in the same manner.

I'll check if I can find figures later but I would assume that, in fact, on average Muslims in the UK are less likely to be murderers than followers of at least some other religions.

Possibly, what of it? The only relevant comparison is the general population, adjusted for known confounders (Northern Irish separatism didn't involve Muslims on either side so it must be discounted). Furthermore you can't put all murders in the same basket, you need to compare apples to apples and thus compare terrorist murders to terrorist murders only.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The flow of information does not go only in one way. While it is true that some people will make their principles up and then look to their holy texts to justify them, others will read the holy texts and make their principles match what they just red. Some will even make up their principles, look to their holy texts to justify them, find their principles are not well justified and change the principles.

It's not a one way street in either direction.

McHrozni

I've yet to meet someone who read a religious text and didn't find in there exactly what they expected to find.

The vast majority of adherents to religions have already adopted their beliefs and principles before they ever read the texts that they come from.

 

[quadraginta]

My suggestion is to arm more police, not all police. Locate them in places where terrorist attacks are determined to be most likely to occur. In areas that are determined to have low likelihood you have no increases in armed police.

Do you have any reason to think that the places you put more armed police will not become areas of low likelihood?

The environment for terrorist targets is infinitely target rich.

Anywhere there are people, basically.

 

[McHrozni]

The vast majority of adherents to religions have already adopted their beliefs and principles before they ever read the texts that they come from.

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

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, but some Muslims also ARE mass murderers waiting to happen too. If you can understand why you can't generalize that too all Muslims you should be able to understand why you can't generalize all who criticize Islam in the same manner.

Possibly, what of it? The only relevant comparison is the general population, adjusted for known confounders (Northern Irish separatism didn't involve Muslims on either side so it must be discounted). Furthermore you can't put all murders in the same basket, you need to compare apples to apples and thus compare terrorist murders to terrorist murders only.

McHrozni

We need to keep moving the goalposts until we get the answer that we want it seems.

You can't generalize all Muslims is exactly what I have been saying here for the past couple of days. And I don't generalise those who criticise Islam. If the criticism is well founded and even handed then fine. I criticise those who jump to point the finger and suggest kneejerk solutions or make unfounded accusations.

The point about terrorism is not an apples to apples comparison by the way. In the absence of a cause and a group to affiliate with it's unlikely a Christian murderer is going to become a terrorist.

In the 1980s I don't think being Irish made you more pre-disposed to being a terrorist than anyone else but yet most terrorists in the UK were Irish. If people were shouting 'being Irish is the problem it's the beliefs and ideology of the Irish that are causing this. It's no coincidence that all the terrorists are Irish' then I think we'd both have thought them daft.

 

[McHrozni]

When you say 'finally beginning to see he early stages of a solution' do you mean that finally the right wing press are reporting the things that have been going on for ages? This news is nothing new.

No. It's Muslim communities finally rejecting the terrorists among their mists in a loud and severe fashion.

Burning effigies of Abu Bakr next. The original one, if at all possible.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

I think the converts things is an interesting and useful angle to explore.

How many converts do you genuinely think are peaceful people who would never hurt a fly, completely contented and happy with life who sit down and read the Quran and decide 'Right this book is clearly correct about things I shall adopt this religion. Unfortunately it does seem to say I have to become a terrorist and blow up kids at pop concerts. I'm not happy about that but it says it in the book. So reluctantly, I'm going to have to go become a suicide bomber. Unfortunate. But what can you do?'

I think your second point is closer to the truth. Troubled and angry people are either being recruited by people who are preying on their vulnerability, or seeing the media coverage, listening to the propaganda and deciding that for whatever warped reason they are going to join in. Then they use the text to justify it.

 

[baron]

Yes, but some Muslims also ARE mass murderers waiting to happen too.

In the UK approximately 23,000 out of a pool of 3,000,000 Muslims have been identified as potential mass murders, or direct supporters thereof.

From of a pool of 40,000,000 Christians the figure is... I've not heard of a single one but I'm sure there are a few.

I wish someone who parrots the mantra that the Bible is as bad as the Koran would explain this discrepancy. If the Koranic texts are no more violent than the Biblical ones (i.e. if Islam does not mandate violence any more than Christianity) the issue must lie with the people themselves. So why are UK citizens who happen to be Muslim vastly more prone to violence than those who happen to be Christian? If it's in the their DNA then that is racism in its purest form. If it's their culture then we're back to the Koran and the haddiths, as that is what Islamic culture is based upon. If we enter the arena of the absurd and claim it's all do with the foreign policy and the killing of Muslims in foreign lands, this clearly doesn't account for the discrepancy either, being that Christians have been persecuted and murdered in Muslim lands for a thousand years yet not once have we had Christians commit acts of terrorism on Muslims in the UK. So, I'm eager to hear the explanation.

 

[McHrozni]

We need to keep moving the goalposts until we get the answer that we want it seems.

You can't generalize all Muslims is exactly what I have been saying here for the past couple of days. And I don't generalise those who criticise Islam.

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

But there is a difference between criticising it and smearing it and its followers with dog dirt because of your own petty prejudices and ignorance.

The point about terrorism is not an apples to apples comparison by the way. In the absence of a cause and a group to affiliate with it's unlikely a Christian murderer is going to become a terrorist.

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.

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.

In the 1980s I don't think being Irish made you more pre-disposed to being a terrorist than anyone else but yet most terrorists in the UK were Irish. If people were shouting 'being Irish is the problem it's the beliefs and ideology of the Irish that are causing this. It's no coincidence that all the terrorists are Irish' then I think we'd both have thought them daft

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, ...).

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

 

[McHrozni]

I think your second point is closer to the truth. Troubled and angry people are either being recruited by people who are preying on their vulnerability, or seeing the media coverage, listening to the propaganda and deciding that for whatever warped reason they are going to join in. Then they use the text to justify 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

 

[McHrozni]

In the UK approximately 23,000 out of a pool of 3,000,000 Muslims have been identified as potential mass murders, or direct supporters thereof.

From of a pool of 40,000,000 Christians the figure is... I've not heard of a single one but I'm sure there are a few.

I wish someone who parrots the mantra that the Bible is as bad as the Koran would explain this discrepancy. If the Koranic texts are no more violent than the Biblical ones (i.e. if Islam does not mandate violence any more than Christianity) the issue must lie with the people themselves. So why are UK citizens who happen to be Muslim vastly more prone to violence than those who happen to be Christian? If it's in the their DNA then that is racism in its purest form. If it's their culture then we're back to the Koran and the haddiths, as that is what Islamic culture is based upon. If we enter the arena of the absurd and claim it's all do with the foreign policy and the killing of Muslims in foreign lands, this clearly doesn't account for the discrepancy either, being that Christians have been persecuted and murdered in Muslim lands for a thousand years yet not once have we had Christians commit acts of terrorism on Muslims in the UK. So, I'm eager to hear the explanation.

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

 

[Information Analyst]

CNN is reporting that ISIS is claiming responsibility. It's probably true.

If a toaster blew up, ISIS would claim "responsibility."