The "bravery" of the anti-Muslim

[Oafman]

Good to know. I wasn't intending this to be anti-British, btw.

I know. But these people do our nation a great disservice, and I felt compelled to point out how unrepresentative they are.

As for use of the word terrorist, it has become so meaningless in recent years, that I say have at it!

 

[Gadarene]

You have a casual attitude to the attacks on these girls.

No, I am responding to your casual attitudes to the word "terrorism", which is rather disrespectful to those suffering from acts of real terrorism.

The words "they're still alive aren't they" is all I need to know that it doesn't mean much to you that they were terrified.

No, I'm saying that they are in an overwhelmingly better situation still than the victims of real terrorism. No-one should be verbally abused for simply minding their own business, but it is not terrorism.

So is it the use of guns, or the fact that it was done in a stadium that makes it terrorism?

It's organised and carried out under the aegis of a specific organisation for political ends, that would be a pretty big difference.

If it turned out all of the suspects in these assault cases were say BNP/BF/EDL members and their leaders had been instructing them to do this, that would be a bit closer to parity with what ISIS does, as all of those groups are political movements.

I thought that terrorism was about instilling terror in others.

By this laughably simplistic definition, horror movies are terrorist acts.

I think that these girls/women and their children, and other Muslim females (and young boys, and maybe some men) who hear or read about these attacks are very probably terrified.

Simply being scared doesn't mean you are a victim of a terrorist attack. This is the same daft mentality that results in mean tweets being called terrorism.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Eric Clapton must be going off on Muslim women and children! lol

 

[TLK Valentine]

lol they need to go to youtube then! They promote those stories all the time. (shrugs) At the same time? I acknowledge you point too.

Indeed they should... but there's ignorant and then there's stunningly ignorant...

 

[TLK Valentine]

In order to do that, they'd have to be thinking that all British whites (for want of a better descriptor, we don't even know what belief/non-belief these guys were that these girls are meant to convert to) are represented by one negative experience they've had with one guy.

Isn't that sort of thinking wrong when white people do that with Muslims?

Of course it is... but we'd be fools to ignore that it happens.

 

[Hetta]

No, I am responding to your casual attitudes to the word "terrorism", which is rather disrespectful to those suffering from acts of real terrorism.

I asked who the terrorist was. IMO, it's a good question.

No, I'm saying that they are in an overwhelmingly better situation still than the victims of real terrorism. No-one should be verbally abused for simply minding their own business, but it is not terrorism.

It's organised and carried out under the aegis of a specific organisation for political ends, that would be a pretty big difference.

If it turned out all of the suspects in these assault cases were say BNP/BF/EDL members and their leaders had been instructing them to do this, that would be a bit closer to parity with what ISIS does, as all of those groups are political movements.

Simply being scared doesn't mean you are a victim of a terrorist attack. This is the same daft mentality that results in mean tweets being called terrorism.

There is no requirement for a "specific organization" to be involved. The definition I just saw was this:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Is it "political" to be verbally and physically aggressive towards the most vulnerable of society in an attempt to force them to "go back home" or otherwise leave the country? It's not one man who has done this to one woman. According to the report, there have been a significant number of these attacks; and of course there are those that are not reported. Violence and intimidation, check. Pursuing political aims? Forced repatriation seems political to me, so I can check that box too.

 

[Gadarene]

Of course it is... but we'd be fools to ignore that it happens.

Sure, but you're blaming the whites/westerners/whatever you want to the call them in both instances.

Why privilege her fear-based response over theirs, at least intellectually?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure, but you're blaming the whites/westerners/whatever you want to the call them in both instances.

I'm blaming them? Where did I do so?

Why privilege her fear-based response over theirs, at least intellectually?

I don't -- can you show me where I did?

I'm merely acknowledging that one might not be so quick to embrace a religion or culture if they characterize their experiences with it as mostly negative and hurtful... is that so unusual?

 

[Hetta]

Eric Clapton must be going off on Muslim women and children! lol

?

 

[Gadarene]

I asked who the terrorist was. IMO, it's a good question.
There is no requirement for a "specific organization" to be involved. The definition I just saw was this:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Was that the definition you just saw after the different one you just gave about terrorism simply being causing terror?

Is it "political" to be verbally and physically aggressive towards the most vulnerable of society in an attempt to force them to "go back home" or otherwise leave the country?

<staff edit> Do the perps seriously expect their targets to pack up and leave, or are they just sounding off?

 

[Gadarene]

I'm blaming them? Where did I do so?

I don't -- can you show me where I did?

I'm merely acknowledging that one might not be so quick to embrace a religion or culture if they characterize their experiences with it as mostly negative and hurtful... is that so unusual?

Of course it isn't. What do you think might be motivating these attackers, I wonder? Their own reactions are their own responsibility, but you're making out it's their responsibility that she might not convert, even though she is applying the same misguided thinking as they are.

 

[Hetta]

I'll have to wait for you to separate your responses from mine.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course it isn't. What do you think might be motivating these attackers, I wonder?

Fear, ignorance, and cowardice -- the usual unholy trinity of the bigot or bully.

Their own reactions are their own responsibility, but you're making out it's their responsibility that she might not convert, even though she is applying the same misguided thinking as they are.

It's not their responsibility for her to convert or not -- but their actions will be part of the reason she chooses not to.

Her reasoning is indeed flawed... but is it flawed for the same reason?

ETA: It would be a shame to judge an entire belief system based on the actions of its worst members... especially if it involved ignoring the best of them:

 

[HannahT]

According to the federal government terrorism as to have more than one aspect to be seen as terrorism. It must fulfill activities with three characteristics.

International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

 

[Hetta]

This isn't occurring in America.

 

[Hetta]

Was that the definition you just saw after the different one you just gave about terrorism simply being causing terror?

The first one was my own random thought, the second one was an actual definition.

Do the perps seriously expect their targets to pack up and leave, or are they just sounding off?

Firstly, it's more than one. It is an increasing number of these events according to the link. Secondly, I will never know because I don't think like that. But I do regularly, and tiresomely see, people telling others to leave "their" country for a widening degree of reasons. I don't think a day passes that I don't see some fool say something like that to another person or people, mostly online. However, this is a person getting in the face of a vulnerable person with an attitude of aggression and forcefulness. I've never felt remotely threatened by what an idiot on the internet has said, but if a guy got in my face in person and told me to I had to leave the country, I would experience fear for a fact. Would I leave? Uh, no. But that doesn't make the fear of actual violence any less. If enough of these people do it to enough of those people, then not only will the perpetuate the cycle of hate, but they will create a permanently frightened group (probably mostly female) - not that they would care much about that. Those little boys watching and hearing this ... what will they grow up believing?

<staff edit>

 

[Oafman]

According to the federal government terrorism as to have more than one aspect to be seen as terrorism. It must fulfill activities with three characteristics.

International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Yeah, the problem with those definitions- certainly the first - is that our countries fulfill them on an almost daily basis. Drone strikes on Pakistani weddings seek to do more than simply eliminate a target. That could be done away from the wedding. They are designed to coerce the population into not harbouring, or having anything to do with such people. By all accounts they are quite effective in this regard.

'Terrorist' has become a pejorative for those we dislike, typically assuming there is some violence involved. The meaning has become so vague as to render the word useless. Being slightly defeatist, people might as well use it however they like.

 

[AionPhanes]

"It's not bad because worse things have happened before." <- Why do some people always use that "logic" when mention is made of attacks on innocent Muslims?

Sad people can't even condemn attacks on these specific women and children but instead feel the need to change the subject as quick as possible. I mean seriously, you guys can't even bring yourself to agree with the coward remark regarding those who do such things because "Something really bad happened somewhere else that was even worse"?

 

[Cerberus~Infinite]

That's exactly what the apologists for Islam do when they point to the Crusades

 

[AionPhanes]

That's exactly what the apologists for Islam do when they point to the Crusades

So I take it you agree with me about the problematic nature of using that type of "logic" to push problems under the table and then turn the topic of discussion away from the specific problems that were originally being discussed?

Would you agree that the people who carried out these attacks on Muslim women and children are in fact cowards, that the issues deserves to be talked about, and that a thread about said topic shouldn't be derailed by listing examples of Muslims who have done bad things before?