Theresa May on London attacks: Enough is Enough

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

There have been plenty of anti-abortionists who have rejected the decisions of courts and politicians. Many have resorted to violence.

Many? What percentage of American Christians, for example, condone violence to suppress abortion? I don't have the time to look up the figures right now, but IIRC, it's under 5 per cent. Compare that with the numbers supporting Sharia (including flogging, stoning, etc) in many of the largest Muslim-majority countries.

Look, every bad thing in the world is evident in every religion. In every culture. That doesn't mean every religion and culture is the same. Degrees matter. Whether 5 per cent of people favour resorting to violence to enforce their religious dogma or 50 per cent do matters. Really, it's all that matters.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

When was the last time 100 people were blown up at an anti-taxation protest?

Equal coverage would likely occur with equal outcomes.

Protests aren't the issue. Action is the issue. Whether it be occupying a wild life refuge, tampering with a natural gas pipeline, or flying a plane into an IRS building, the actions continue.

[nik-]

And the scale of the actions isn't even in the same realm for a vast, vast majority of the time. Hence the variance in coverage.

It's not some conspiracy.

[Lanny_McDonald]

This will turn out well. Total recruiting poster type stuff.

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/05/kill...slamic-horror/

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

And the scale of the actions isn't even in the same realm for a vast, vast majority of the time. Hence the variance in coverage.

It's not some conspiracy.

You're right, its not.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...mic-terrorism/
http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-t...clusive-612492

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

You're right, its not.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...mic-terrorism/
http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-t...clusive-612492

Ignores WTC, ignores Oklahoma.

Why? That's a pretty significant massage.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ignores WTC, ignores Oklahoma.

Why? That's a pretty significant massage.

Read the article.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

Read the article.

Yeah, I did. They're trying to show frequency over impact, but impact is what I said was the driver of the coverage.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, I did. They're trying to show frequency over impact, but impact is what I said was the driver of the coverage.

Frequency should matter just as much, if not more. If you get your ass kicked in a fight on your way home from school once, your parents likely don't have any reason for major concern. If you're coming home with a bloody nose once a week, there issue is probably much more concerning.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

She should start with shutting down the various illegal sharia courts throughout the UK, I'm sure her London mayor Sadiq Khan could point out a few of them for her.

What an ignorant post that also has nothing to say that is relevant to what happened on Saturday night.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

Frequency should matter just as much, if not more. If you get your ass kicked in a fight on your way home from school once, your parents likely don't have any reason for major concern. If you're coming home with a bloody nose once a week, there issue is probably much more concerning.

Maybe it should, but it apparently doesn't. It's pretty natural to have a greater impact from a sudden burst event rather than a protracted event.

I'd like to see these stats with Europe included as well, from the same time window. From a purely curious state, I'd like to see if the ratios remain the same. I'd expect they'd skew, but that's just an assumption.

edit: here apparently. Unfortunate cut off date.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Religious courts should be outlawed. Full stop. Laws that govern your society are legislated by elected representatives, discussed in an open forum, and rejected or accepted on their merits.

Tribunals or courts outside the system inherently undermine it. We have lots of avenues to pursue disagreements in western cultures.

And Christian influence on our Charter is one thing - I can leave Canada, marry an Indonesian, say ####ty things about Canada, renounce my citizenship, be a victim of sexual assault, lots of things that under Sharia law would be forbidden.

Separation of church and state is there for a reason.

Again, Sharia courts and tribunals are completely separate from the legal system in western society, and many Muslims believe as you do (that Sharia should not influence legal code or adhere to non-Muslims). I don't mean to shock your system, but there are hundreds of non-binding codes of conduct and tribunal systems outside of the law in Canada. Sharia doesn't not automatically undermine the legal system and the tribunals generally seek to answer the question of whether something is good in the eyes of god. The problem is: some are being misused, which (instead of an outright ban) means that they need to be more transparent, as using Sharia to undermine the law goes against both the teachings of progressive Islam and the legal system itself.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Sharia law cannot and will not ever mix with western society, Islam needs a reformation away from this garbage or this segregation and violence will never end.

Anyone who wants to practice this trash needs to move back to the middle east.

Except it does now, with pretty great success for the majority in western society, while they reform Islam. So... you're a bit late to the party if you don't think there aren't liberal practicing Muslims who mix Sharia with western society quite nicely.

Sorry, I think peaceful, loving, liberal people who use Sharia as their guide belong in Canada a lot more than bigoted, racist white nationalists. Practice that trash somewhere else. In Canada, we respect other people's freedoms and progressive values. I know countless Muslims that represent Canada beautifully, but I don't know a single racist or bigot that does so.

Islam is a religion, like many others, where the progressive members can be wonderful and open people and in the West those members are numerous. There is no such thing as a wonderful, progressive member or supporter of a hate group. So before you make claims about who belongs here, ask yourself if you do, Snuff.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Many? What percentage of American Christians, for example, condone violence to suppress abortion? I don't have the time to look up the figures right now, but IIRC, it's under 5 per cent. Compare that with the numbers supporting Sharia (including flogging, stoning, etc) in many of the largest Muslim-majority countries.

Look, every bad thing in the world is evident in every religion. In every culture. That doesn't mean every religion and culture is the same. Degrees matter. Whether 5 per cent of people favour resorting to violence to enforce their religious dogma or 50 per cent do matters. Really, it's all that matters.

You're a big proponent of nurture over nature, from your family value posts.

You don't think Western society plays a HUGE role, perhaps bigger than religion, in that differential?

Why are American and Canadian Muslims so much more progressive than those in the Middle East? Why are American and Canadian Christians so much more progressive than those in Africa?

You can't accurately compare 5% of American Christians with 50% of Afghani Muslims, what's your constant in that scenario?

I bet Christianity looks pretty ugly if you compare the moral/social standards of Canadian Muslims vs African Christians, or Christian people from 3rd world countries. These things offer crucial context.

Not saying you're wrong but it's not honest to present those comparisons as having any objective value.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by New Era

Frequency should matter just as much, if not more. If you get your ass kicked in a fight on your way home from school once, your parents likely don't have any reason for major concern. If you're coming home with a bloody nose once a week, there issue is probably much more concerning.

Frequency perhaps should, but history tells us it doesn't. Rampage shootings in the US aren't even front page news anymore. In terms of terrorism in the UK, IRA bombings were so commonplace in the 70s that they were just part of life. Though it helped that most of the 3500 casualties were located in Belfast and NI itself, rather than London.

[DiracSpike]

People are getting killed by Islamists every month in Europe now. But that's totally the same thing as an abortion clinic that got bombed in the '80s.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that there is a clear link between Islam and terrorism. Especially because the people carrying out the attacks EXPLICITLY cite religion.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

Maybe it should, but it apparently doesn't. It's pretty natural to have a greater impact from a sudden burst event rather than a protracted event.

I'd like to see these stats with Europe included as well, from the same time window. From a purely curious state, I'd like to see if the ratios remain the same. I'd expect they'd skew, but that's just an assumption.

edit: here apparently. Unfortunate cut off date.

I'd actually like to see a graph with actual deaths. I'm guessing the vast majority of these separatist attacks are attributable to Basque groups, specifically the ETA. The ETA usually target specific people or law enforcement. Their attacks rarely result in bystanders being killed. The ETA also agreed to a permanent ceasefire in 2011. The ETA also doesn't have much activity outside of France/Spain. So unless you were a citizen in the area around the Basque areas, you wouldn't be directly affected by those attacks.

This stands in stark contrast to recent attacks by Islamists who specifically go after "soft" targets and try and maximize bystander deaths.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

People are getting killed by Islamists every month in Europe now. But that's totally the same thing as an abortion clinic that got bombed in the '80s.

Because it wasn't something that "just" happened in the 1980s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/u...ting.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-violence.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that there is a clear link between Islam and terrorism. Especially because the people carrying out the attacks EXPLICITLY cite religion.

Because it's a false narrative. Terrorism is a tactic used by those who do not have a means to strike directly at the organs of the enemy state. Terrorism is used by people of all beliefs, not just one.

NSFW!

Here's a look at 2017. The frequency of attacks in the Muslim world is certainly high, but that might be because their lands are being occupied and the people being oppressed.

https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/t...cks/?year=2017

Terrorism is a tactic used by those who feel they are being unfairly oppressed. Feel free to browse this database to see the widespread appeal of terrorism is a tactic. This is not just an issue for Islam.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

[DiracSpike]

The real false narrative is that these terrorists are oppressed peoples lashing out against their oppressors (big surprise that a leftist would trot out that trope...).

It doesn't explain why a lot of these terrorists attack their home country. Or why high functioning individuals from countries largely free from western interference like Saudi Arabia and Egypt fly planes into buildings. Or, if you want to expand the category of "oppressed" countries to any area that has seen any kind of colonialism ever, why we don't see attacks against western countries by people from SE Asia or Latin America? What has freaking Belgium ever done to Arab people to deserve a terrorist attack?

It's nice you found a link to a map documenting "terror" attacks all over the world, and no one is saying it's the exclusive realm of islam, but its much, much, much more common than any other motivation.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The real false narrative is that these terrorists are oppressed peoples lashing out against their oppressors (big surprise that a leftist would trot out that trope...).

It doesn't explain why a lot of these terrorists attack their home country. Or why high functioning individuals from countries largely free from western interference like Saudi Arabia and Egypt fly planes into buildings. Or, if you want to expand the category of "oppressed" countries to any area that has seen any kind of colonialism ever, why we don't see attacks against western countries by people from SE Asia or Latin America? What has freaking Belgium ever done to Arab people to deserve a terrorist attack?

It's nice you found a link to a map documenting "terror" attacks all over the world, and no one is saying it's the exclusive realm of islam, but its much, much, much more common than any other motivation.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html

There is no link between terrorism and standard of living. Terrorism is not a crime of opportunity, which are typically linked to oppression and low economic status.

Terrorism has far more in common with political dissent, which occurs more often in those engaged in politics. IE if you are well educated in politics you are more likely to take politics to an extreme and engage in terrorism.

If you look at the attackers in the UK over the last few years, many came from good families and had good educational opportunities. The only thing they have in common is that they are young, male, and had come in contact with extremist propaganda. It seems that France may be a slightly different situation though, as you do have many terrorists being radicalized within the jail system.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The real false narrative is that these terrorists are oppressed peoples lashing out against their oppressors (big surprise that a leftist would trot out that trope...).

What would you call what the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and assists other dictators in the region to do to their people? Or what Israel does to Palestinians? Or what the leaders of the Middle East countries do to their own people?

It doesn't explain why a lot of these terrorists attack their home country.

Because most of the Middle East is ruled by autocrats and dictators. People who are not the ruling class in these countries are all oppressed by their rulers. That is why it is such a fertile breeding ground for people willing to give their lives to strike back at those who they become convinced are oppressing them.

Or why high functioning individuals from countries largely free from western interference like Saudi Arabia and Egypt fly planes into buildings.

See above. When you feel you are oppressed you will do almost anything to escape that feeling and that state.

Or, if you want to expand the category of "oppressed" countries to any area that has seen any kind of colonialism ever, why we don't see attacks against western countries by people from SE Asia or Latin America?

Check the database I provided.

What has freaking Belgium ever done to Arab people to deserve a terrorist attack?

Belgium participated in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's nice you found a link to a map documenting "terror" attacks all over the world, and no one is saying it's the exclusive realm of islam, but its much, much, much more common than any other motivation.

Really? You did in the post I answered to. As I said, peruse the database I provided a link to. Maybe you'll get a little bit of insight into terrorism before you post again.