Fatal Cleaver Attack on soldier in London Caught on Camera NSFW

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

There was alot of racial profiling after 9/11. When the planes started to fly my brother who lives Statside commented that any time a Muslim got on a plane passengers would complain and wanted him off. As time went on the fears dissipated as well as the racial profiling. Passengers no longer had fears when a Muslim boarded a plane. People began to realise that if they didn't board those planes the Terrorists would have won and thankfully they didn't. Show no fear is how you beat them.

Hopefully things got better, but I am not quite sure. There is a tipping point, Scottish seems to have hit it.

I don't think this is won with 'show no fear'. This is won when everyone around says there is zero tolerance for the absence of human rights. I have no clue what happens than, but I feel we empower terrorists by blaming the west and we also enable them and weaken ourselves with that kind of talk.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

Get mad all you want but when someone calls the Muslim religion evil because of the acts of some terrorists you lose my support for any arguments you might have.
You can throw stones but puckluck can't? Sorry, but you lost me there.

But I didn't say that...clearly you can read. Or maybe you can't? Your post make no sense considering you quoted me and then made some very vague claims that someone called Muslims evil, when I did no such thing nor did I allude to that in any way.

As always, these threads evolve into someone misquoting someone else to make them look bad. So amateur, shameful it was you.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Hopefully things got better, but I am not quite sure. There is a tipping point, Scottish seems to have hit it.

I don't think this is won with 'show no fear'. This is won when everyone around says there is zero tolerance for the absence of human rights. I have no clue what happens than, but I feel we empower terrorists by blaming the west and we also enable them and weaken ourselves with that kind of talk.

After 9/11 I asked my brother if he was going to fly again. His response was that if he didn't board those planes the Terrorists would have won. It seems to me the American flying public adopted the same attitude. Part of the war can be won by showing no fear.

We empower the terrorists by having troops in the Middle East by taking sides and fighting other peoples wars. The extremeists don't want us there and use that as a justification for thier terror attacks on the west.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

But I didn't say that...clearly you can read. Or maybe you can't? Your post make no sense considering you quoted me and then made some very vague claims that someone called Muslims evil, when I did no such thing nor did I allude to that in any way.

As always, these threads evolve into someone misquoting someone else to make them look bad. So amateur, shameful it was you.

If you had read the thread and it's posts you would have known that Scottish Flame made the comment that the Muslim reliion is evil. Nowhere did I mention you as the person who made the comment. Ask for clarification if you are not sure

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

After 9/11 I asked my brother if he was going to fly again. His response was that if he didn't board those planes the Terrorists would have won. It seems to me the American flying public adopted the same attitude. Part of the war can be won by showing no fear.

We empower the terrorists by having troops in the Middle East by taking sides and fighting other peoples wars. The extremeists don't want us there and use that as a justification for thier terror attacks on the west.

If we did not have troops in the Middle East their dictators would still be brutal to their citizens and would still misdirect their dissatisfaction towards us. I am not sure how our troops play into that and how much of an effect our troops have.

We did many of those nations favors by being in Iraq since they now have more reasons to blame us for their citizens living poorly while they live in palaces.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

If we did not have troops in the Middle East their dictators would still be brutal to their citizens and would still misdirect their dissatisfaction towards us. I am not sure how our troops play into that and how much of an effect our troops have.

We did many of those nations favors by being in Iraq since they now have more reasons to blame us for their citizens living poorly while they live in palaces.

If America was supporting dictators like Saddam.....

ABC News Nightline opened on June 9, 1993 with the truth for a change: "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

But where was the US concern about "Saddam's human rights record," "democracy," or "weapons of mass destruction" then? Why would the US support Saddam Hussein in the 1980s?

The New York Times explained this mystery: "For ten years, as Iraq developed a vast army, chemical weapons and a long record of brutality, the Reagan and Bush [Sr.] administrations quietly courted Hussein as a counter-weight to Iran's revolutionary fervor." (8/13/90)

Washington feared the spread of Iran's theocratic, anti-Western ideology, which threatened imperialist interests in the region. So the US armed and financed Saddam during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war which cost over one million lives and an astronomical $1.19 trillion. The US supplied Iraq with military intelligence, $5 billion in food subsidies, $2.5 billion in export loan guarantees, and $141 million in direct export subsidies. According to Senator Robert Byrd in recent Congressional testimony, the US also sent Saddam a "witches' brew of pathogens" including anthrax, botulinum, and West Nile virus. (West Virginia Gazette, 9/27/02)

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," explained Col. Walter P. Lang (retired senior Defense Intelligence officer) in a recent interview with the New York Times. An anonymous "senior U.S. officer" further commented that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make a difference." (8/18/02)

http://www.socialistalternative.org/...madeinusa.html

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not commenting on the immigration issue, but that does not sound like a native English accent to me.

Just for the record, that is one of the many typical London accents. If you ever listen to UK rappers & 'Urban' artists speak in interviews you'll hear this dialect. I live in south east London & you see guys like this hanging around everywhere, though they're usually not wielding cleavers & machetes

There is an enormous population of people from African descent — or to be un-PC 'black people' — whose families have been here for several generations. Just like any other cross-section of a society, most are upstanding citizens but some are scumbags. There are serious issues with gang culture & knife crime in London which are so bad that the media love using the term 'epidemic' to describe them. A lot of the violence stems from the poverty & decrepitude in the council estates (London's equivalent to 'the Projects') where the poorest & least fortunate of British society live. You get similar problems in every massive city. As Calgary grows & expands it is bound to have similar growing pains — I've lived in some of the roughest areas in London & in the U.S. but the only place I've ever been mugged was Calgary!

These 2 idiots are most definitely from the UK (it has been confirmed by all media sources as such) so the entire immigration argument is moot. In all likelihood they were acting alone & there wasn't any planning needed. It was a random act of brutal violence that a thick-skulled bonehead has decided to claim in the name of Allah. These 2 ####wits were more than likely disaffected with society & turned to hate-preachers & extremists on the Internet.

Hopefully this is the end of it & there aren't more knuckleheads out there waiting to hack down innocents in the streets to get their moment of fame on peoples' smartphones & camcorders. London is an amazingly cool place these days because of its diversity of culture; it really is a global hub. But I worry that London is a powder keg as well.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

If we did not have troops in the Middle East their dictators would still be brutal to their citizens and would still misdirect their dissatisfaction towards us. I am not sure how our troops play into that and how much of an effect our troops have.

We did many of those nations favors by being in Iraq since they now have more reasons to blame us for their citizens living poorly while they live in palaces.

Most likely it would be worst, Iran would probably have the "bomb" already and if Iraq wasn't taken care of they would too. the spin off of that would be ######s like the Taliban and Hezbollah would get there hands on one too... eventually.

It's quite possible without the Americans the middle east would be made of glass by now.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

What I find amazing in this thread are the attacks on scottish_flame from a group of people that are just as bigoted against Israel.

That's a mighty broad brush.

Who are this "group of people" that are "just as bigoted" against Israel?

How can you possibly defend a guy who admitted in this thread he is a bigot (but not a racist ) and has made bigoted statements against not only Muslims but also the Irish?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not sure how our troops play into that and how much of an effect our troops have.

Really? REALLY?

So a foreign army is patrolling your country, your city, your neighbourhood and you'd be just fine with that?

BS.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jammies

Did you make that chart? You seem really protective of it, and it seriously looks like it was made by a first-year intern who used a wizard in Excel to produce it. It is, without a doubt, the feeblest attempt at charting I have seen since the last time I opened the Calgary SUN.

Yah, the chart shows you a (debatably) accurate graphical view of the data. So what? I could show you a list of numbers from the same original source and it would convey MORE information with the same impact, but the whole point of making a graphic is to convey information more succinctly and/or vividly, and to help the viewer understand the data in ways that aren't possible or easy to see by just looking at the source.

That chart, conversely, does nothing but make me wonder who picked the labels, color scheme, and data to be presented. It actively conveys negative information, so that I will go to bed fearing the Latino threat to our way of life. That chart, valo, is why the terrorists are winning.

Gimme a f'in break. People wanted to take issues with that chart misrepresenting things, when the fact is it's an accurate presentation of the statistics. If you have an issue with the data set compiled by the FBI that's a different story, and I've already said repeatedly that the Latino labelling is deceptive, which does not seem to get through to you.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by valo403

Gimme a f'in break. People wanted to take issues with that chart misrepresenting things, when the fact is it's an accurate presentation of the statistics. If you have an issue with the data set compiled by the FBI that's a different story, and I've already said repeatedly that the Latino labelling is deceptive, which does not seem to get through to you.

The two bolded statements contradict each other. I don't think I'm the one who's not getting it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jammies

The two bolded statements contradict each other. I don't think I'm the one who's not getting it.

One portion of the chart has an issue with the label used, it still represents the stats in the FBI data file accurately.

But hey, why don't you draft up a chart that shows us how many people were killed by the various acts, because I'm sure we're all wondering what terrorist act had the highest death toll. That's one of those questions that people just never know the answer to.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by valo403

One portion of the chart has an issue with the label used, it still represents the stats in the FBI data file accurately.

.

I don't think the numbers are what is being questioned as much as what the numbers actually mean. The chart is telling a story with pretty subjective qualities.

Why call one group; "Latinos"? Why not call them; "Nationalists" or "Separatists"? It would certainly fall in line more with the other groups listed; like, "Communists" and "Left Wing Extremists".

Also, just to add, most religious fanatics could also be described as "right wing" as their views are typically extemely conservative. Why not lump the Islamic and Jewish extremists into one group and call it "Right Wing Extremists"? If animal rights activists get lumped in as "Left Wing Extremists", then shouldn't the same logic apply?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think the numbers are what is being questioned as much as what the numbers actually mean. The chart is telling a story with pretty subjective qualities.

Why call one group; "Latinos"? Why not call them; "Nationalists" or "Separatists"? It would certainly fall in line more with the other groups listed; like, "Communists" and "Left Wing Extremists".

Also, just to add, most religious fanatics could also be described as "right wing" as their views are typically extemely conservative. Why not lump the Islamic and Jewish extremists into one group and call it "Right Wing Extremists"? If animal rights activists get lumped in as "Left Wing Extremists", then shouldn't the same logic apply?

Agree completely on the Latino label, an odd choice.

I don't know what part of the political spectrum any of the religious groups come from, but I don't see an issue with labelling them based upon their stated religious cause, be it from the far left or far right.

I think the whole point of the chart was to counter claims like '99% of terrorist attacks are committed by muslims', and it does that effectively. Obviously there are differences in the nature and success of the attacks, but that's not what this diagram sought to demonstrate.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by valo403

One portion of the chart has an issue with the label used, it still represents the stats in the FBI data file accurately.

But hey, why don't you draft up a chart that shows us how many people were killed by the various acts, because I'm sure we're all wondering what terrorist act had the highest death toll. That's one of those questions that people just never know the answer to.

Ok, this is going way off on a tangent in some ways, but in other ways, it's actually very relevant - this isn't about "death toll", this is about WHY the chart is the way it is, and shows the data in the way it does. I don't care about the specifics of a better chart, although I'm certain I could take that (flawed) data, and make not one, but many better. Therefore, your constant harping on 9/11 being the biggest terrorist act, and that it's dumb to want to show this yet again, is completely, entirely and utterly irrelevant.

What does the author of this chart want to show us? That's the question you should always ask - not "is this accurate?", but "what am I being told, and why?" The best propaganda is the kind that doesn't lie, but tells you a selective truth - because arguing against the truth is far more difficult than any lie.

Here, the author of the chart uses the labels to tell that selective truth - labels that are nowhere explicit in the data, but are rather outside that data and chosen by him. We have these labels:

Latino
Communists
Islamic Extremists
Jewish Extremists
Extreme Left Wing Groups
Others

Just looking at those labels, I wonder if the chart was made by J. Edgar Hoover, reaching out from the grave. Hmm, we have Jews, Communists, and foreigners - if only there was some way to fit homosexuals in there, it'd be a win right across the board! Alas, apparently the gays aren't organized enough to light off pipe bombs, plus we don't want to be TOO obvious.

Now some people might wonder how Communists aren't part of Extreme Left Wing Groups, and somehow rate their own slice of the pie. It certainly couldn't be just to imply that "Left Wing = Terrorist", because the equivalent Extreme Right Wing Groups is also in the... hmm, where is Extreme Right Wing Groups?!?

Well, in just a short look at the actual data, I was able to find multiple incidents of right-wing, home-grown terrorism that caused deaths.

Sheriff's Posse Comitatus 1983 2
McVeigh/Nicols 1995 168
Eric Rudolph 1998 2
Eric Rudolph 1998 1
Benjamin Nathaniel Smith 1999 2
Buford O'neal Furrow 1999 1

That is 6 incidents. There are 26 such incidents during that time period, so that is 23% of the fatality-causing events. From a grouping that doesn't even appear in this "accurate" graph.

Now, maybe this number isn't significant. Maybe the right-wing is just really good at killing people (NRA represent!), and those 6 are the only examples of right-wing terrorism in those 25 years. Maybe. I didn't look that deeply, but I'd be willing to bet I could find at least 5% (same as Communists) of those incidents that I could classify as right-wing extremist terrorism.

So - why is that not in the chart? Draw your own conclusions, but remember that even in my examples, it's selective bias that is making me pick Right-Wing Extremists as a group as well. Why not Christian Extremists? Instead of Extreme Left Wing Groups, why not Animal Rights Activists? Why not Anarchists, and, by the way, why is the Unabomber listed nowhere in those supposedly accurate FBI stats?

I hope this adequately explains why I think that particular chart is deeply flawed and nearly useless. It's not showing you "facts", it's showing you an interpretation of those facts, and not a particularly subtle or enlightening one, either. No matter what your opinions on any topic, it's vital that you always look at "facts" with one question uppermost in your mind: why *these* facts, and why are they presented in *this* way?

Now, back to bickering about who is more bigoted...

[jammies]

Oh, and by the way - only complete idiots believe that 99% of terrorism is caused by Muslims. And you won't convince those kind of morons no matter what chart you use.

Sorry to anyone who previously made that claim in this thread. If I don't go back and look, and just assume nobody did, we're all good here, right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jammies

Oh, and by the way - only complete idiots believe that 99% of terrorism is caused by Muslims. And you won't convince those kind of morons no matter what chart you use.

Sorry to anyone who previously made that claim in this thread. If I don't go back and look, and just assume nobody did, we're all good here, right?

Someone did, which is why the chart was referenced.

As for your rant, the purpose of the chart, at least for it's use here, was to demonstrate that "only complete idiots believe that 99% of terrorism is caused by Muslims".

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Gimme a f'in break. People wanted to take issues with that chart misrepresenting things, when the fact is it's an accurate presentation of the statistics. If you have an issue with the data set compiled by the FBI that's a different story, and I've already said repeatedly that the Latino labelling is deceptive, which does not seem to get through to you.

It's not in any way accurate.

The definition of terrorist act changes. It also excludes several acts committed by muslims. See my previous post. It also uses a very selective time period.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's not in any way accurate.

The definition of terrorist act changes. It also excludes several acts committed by muslims. See my previous post. It also uses a very selective time period.

Nm, stupid argument to begin with.