Terrorist Attack on Britain

[Gadarene]

LOL^ I love how some minds work.
Muslim cuts off a british soldiers head of and yet here you are claiming that the whole thing is overblown because white people are racist.

I'm saying everyone is racist, actually. And sexist, and whatever else -ist. In-group bias is a powerful thing.

Maybe it would be overblown if it was an isolated incident, but it wasn't.

Except it was, it was a lone wolf attack.

Maybe it would be overblown if muslims actually wanted to integrate into our societies, but they don't. Muslims who are terrorists are a tiny minority it's true, but muslims who have extremist views is not a minority at all.

And then you made a sweeping generalisation about an outside group.

"Muslims" - without quantifier - don't want to integrate.

I suppose I couldn't have have asked for a better demonstration of my point

 

[DocSwole]

I'm saying everyone is racist, actually. And sexist, and whatever else -ist. In-group bias is a powerful thing.



Except it was, it was a lone wolf attack.



And then you made a sweeping generalisation about an outside group.

"Muslims" - without quantifier - don't want to integrate.

I suppose I couldn't have have asked for a better demonstration of my point

lone wolf attack =/= isolated incident. Terrorist attacks in the uk are nothing new, nor are they nothing in the western world in general.
I'm not even british but I remember 7/7, you don't?

My "sweeping generalization about an outside group" is based on facts.
ww w. cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 (remove spaces as I can't post links )
that is just one of many articles and polls done about the extremism of the islamic population. In this one we see 25% of muslims supporting the terrorist attack that happened on 7/7 as well as many other nasty facts.

 

[Gadarene]

lone wolf attack =/= isolated incident. Terrorist attacks in the uk are nothing new, nor are they nothing in the western world in general.
I'm not even british but I remember 7/7, you don't?

No, I just don't make a point of judging 1.5 billion people based on the actions of six of that set.

My "sweeping generalization about an outside group" is based on facts.
ww w. cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 (remove spaces as I can't post links )
that is just one of many articles and polls done about the extremism of the islamic population. In this one we see 25% of muslims supporting the terrorist attack that happened on 7/7 as well as many other nasty facts.

The rather obvious side of the coin is that (assuming the study is viable) means 75% don't, but you have taken the option of claiming that Muslims as a whole "don't want to integrate", and the generalisation is no less a stereotype than "black people have good rhythm". So what if a particular statistic exists? It doesn't entail any kind of behaviour from any one individual, which is the basis for our laws governing equality.

This stereotyped thinking is what I'm trying to eliminate from both sides of the equation.

 

[DocSwole]

No, I just don't make a point of judging 1.5 billion people based on the actions of six of that set.



The rather obvious side of the coin is that (assuming the study is viable) means 75% don't, but you have taken the option of claiming that Muslims as a whole "don't want to integrate", and the generalisation is no less a stereotype than "black people have good rhythm". So what if a particular statistic exists? It doesn't entail any kind of behaviour from any one individual, which is the basis for our laws governing equality.

This stereotyped thinking is what I'm trying to eliminate from both sides of the equation.

That 25% will be enough to cause genocide in 50 or 100 years given current immigration trends.
I would not like my children to experience that. Sure there are good muslims and bad muslims but if we give them a chance that will be the future of the western world.

 

[Gadarene]

That 25% will be enough to cause genocide in 50 or 100 years given current immigration trends.
I would not like my children to experience that. Sure there are good muslims and bad muslims but if we give them a chance that will be the future of the western world.

Well, I'm sure they will all end up genocidal if we start acting like they all are.

If every chance to prove otherwise is denied them because of our fear and stereotyping, the only place we'll have left to them is the radicals.

That said, the whole immigration/birth rate arguments are laughable extrapolations assuming current rates stay constant, which is unlikely in the first place.

Encourage the 75% - lumping them in with the 25% is just encouraging that portion to grow.

 

[DocSwole]

Well, I'm sure they will all end up genocidal if we start acting like they all are.

If every chance to prove otherwise is denied them because of our fear and stereotyping, the only place we'll have left to them is the radicals.

That said, the whole immigration/birth rate arguments are laughable extrapolations assuming current rates stay constant, which is unlikely in the first place.

Encourage the 75% - lumping them in with the 25% is just encouraging that portion to grow.

See you're doing it again, you are shifting the blame from the culprit to the victim. It's like blaming a woman for being raped (don't wear such provocative clothes next time!). Shame.
Sweden is one of the most tolerant countries in the world. Look at the beating they are receiving in the recent immigrant riots.
If we end up hiding our heads in the sand like you are suggesting we are only delaying the inevitable problems.

As for the immigration rates changing, maybe they will. I don't know.
Why do you expect a drastic shift? Any data to back it up?

 

[Gadarene]

See you're doing it again, you are shifting the blame from the culprit to the victim. It's like blaming a woman for being raped (don't wear such provocative clothes next time!). Shame.

Nope - haven't actually blamed anyone exclusively, that is your strawman - I have specifically said I am trying to reduce faulty behaviour on both sides. It is entirely possible to condemn the attackers while not pretending that there aren't two sides in this. The condemnation of victim-blaming in rape is as much to do with the passing out of redundant advice that women are already well aware of and beating themselves up for anyway.

I really will never understand where this tired notion that an attempt to explain is an attempt to condone comes from. It is non-sequitur from the ground up.

Sweden is one of the most tolerant countries in the world. Look at the beating they are receiving in the recent immigrant riots.

Because it's still not that socially mobile and is stratified by income - there's a rather obvious correlation between immigrants and income level which you are ignoring.

If we end up hiding our heads in the sand like you are suggesting we are only delaying the inevitable problems.

Acknowledging the role BOTH sides play in a chain of events is most assuredly not burying one's head in the sand.

That practice I leave for those frantically denying there is anything that we are doing wrong in this situation.

As for the immigration rates changing, maybe they will. I don't know.
Why do you expect a drastic shift? Any data to back it up?

Net immigration is actually down in England, not that it's shut the nationalists up.

 

[Picky Picky]

I saw this story earlier, thought it was brilliant.

I think the real problem with the discussions in this thread and worldwide about this attack and terrorism in general is that we've all forgotten what terrorism is. I don't know if it is because the discussions are mostly US-led and radical Islam is all they know, but here in the UK we've had terrorist attacks since long before radical Islam became a major issue. The attacks in those cases came from the IRA - nothing to do with Islam.

The immediate jump to Islam as a problem should be avoided by everyone, regardless of what side of the fence they are on regarding Islam in general. Terrorism is political. It has been dressed up as all sorts of things, in these cases religion, but in the end it always boils down to politics.

Well, politics or religion or race, or a combination. The Jewish terrorism against the British in the 1940s: political/racial/religious – can you distinguish them? Christian terrorism in Ireland (it's still going on, by the way): religious/political/both? State terrorism by Nazi Germany against the Jews: all three? By the Soviet Union against the Jews: all three? By KKK against blacks in the South: political/racial? By Catholics/Protestants against each other in 16th C England: religious/political? Always hate, at any rate. We could do with less of it.

 

[MagicSabbath]

I watched this on the news. Horrible tragedy made worse by government disarming their citizens and police, so that terrorists the world over know they'll hardly meet any armed resistance.

Mr.Rigby lived through his military service and was butchered on the street of his home country by an enemy his nation allies against with the U.S.

This is a shame on many fronts. Including the one wherein an armed citizen resistance is no longer legal.

The stupidity in government that thought that was a genius idea given the conflicts in Muslim countries that GB is involved in deserves to be studied for signs of chronic mental illness.

Especially with the Muslim conflicts that already occur in GB wherein "Sharia Law Zones" are being established unofficially by a terrorist Muslim agenda and it's agents.

Washington Post

This is just disturbing how so many people saw this there, but couldn't even do anything. Maybe if Britain let their citizens have their own guns this guy might still be alive. I'll be praying for this man's family though. This world is getting worse everyday...

 

[Picky Picky]

I watched this on the news. Horrible tragedy made worse by government disarming their citizens and police, so that terrorists the world over know they'll hardly meet any armed resistance.

Mr.Rigby lived through his military service and was butchered on the street of his home country by an enemy his nation allies against with the U.S.

This is a shame on many fronts. Including the one wherein an armed citizen resistance is no longer legal.

The stupidity in government that thought that was a genius idea given the conflicts in Muslim countries that GB is involved in deserves to be studied for signs of chronic mental illness.

Especially with the Muslim conflicts that already occur in GB wherein "Sharia Law Zones" are being established unofficially by a terrorist Muslim agenda and it's agents.

Oh dear, what nonsense. Please stop regretting our inability to walk the streets heavily armed. Come back when the US murder rate is not quite so much higher than ours.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Oh dear, what nonsense. Please stop regretting our inability to walk the streets heavily armed. Come back when the US murder rate is not quite so much higher than ours.

Since Switzerland and Finland, to my knowledge, have gun laws similar to the US' without anywhere NEAR the same murder rate, I'd like to you demonstrate that the ability to defend oneself is actually the problem...

 

[Picky Picky]

Well, firstly this isn't about the ability to defend oneself, is it? Secondly, although the Swiss and Finnish gun laws are not as strict as ours, they are certainly not similar to those of the US.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Well, firstly this isn't about the ability to defend oneself, is it? Secondly, although the Swiss and Finnish gun laws are not as strict as ours, they are certainly not similar to those of the US.

1: Yes, gun ownership IS about self-defense. Self-defense is largely illegal in most of Western Europe (if the attacker gets hurt worse than you did, you risk prosecution).

2: In what way are Swiss and Finnish laws stricter than the US?
IIRC, all Swiss citizens have guns in their homes, because of the Militia.

 

[Picky Picky]

1: Yes, gun ownership IS about self-defense. Self-defense is largely illegal in most of Western Europe (if the attacker gets hurt worse than you did, you risk prosecution).

2: In what way are Swiss and Finnish laws stricter than the US?
IIRC, all Swiss citizens have guns in their homes, because of the Militia.

1 This incident is not about people being killed because they or others were not armed. Moreover self defence is not illegal as far as I know in any part of Western Europe. It is true that there is often a presumption that self-defence should be proportionate, and a good thing too.

2 As to Switzerland, check the laws regarding permits, restrictions on types of weapon, restrictions on ammunition, restrictions on carrying weapons in public (particularly loaded) etc. And that's in a country which really does believe it needs a well-regulated militia.

As to Finland, check the restrictions on carrying weapons, the restrictions on types, the background checks and licensing arrangements.

3 My understanding is that Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK and Finland a higher one. Neither Switzerland nor the UK nor Finland, however, has a murder rate that compares in any way with that in the United States, and that is why I find it maddening when Americans criticise our public order arrangements. They would do better to look abroad and try to learn lessons.

 

[Phileas]

Ugh, there is so much stupidity in this thread it seems to have caved in on itself absorbing inanity from all across the bore-verse.

We don't want your wild west justice so bore off with your gun fetishes. Some people here seem to have attempted to understand the mentality that breeds this monsterous behaviour and have been roundly condemed by bone-headed broad-brush lowest common denominator BS that does nothing but perpetuate the turd cycle of finger pointing that gives rise to extremism of all forms in the first place. The frankly vile and offensive comments that have been spouted by people with the audacity to label themselves as "civilised Christians" is shocking. I hope they take the time to go back and read what's been posted here carefully for once and feel ashamed at their attitudes.

 

[Gadarene]

Especially with the Muslim conflicts that already occur in GB wherein "Sharia Law Zones" are being established unofficially by a terrorist Muslim agenda and it's agents.

Er......which are where, exactly?

It's the UK, not the bloody Green Zone.

 

[All Englands Skies]

See you're doing it again, you are shifting the blame from the culprit to the victim. It's like blaming a woman for being raped (don't wear such provocative clothes next time!). Shame.
Sweden is one of the most tolerant countries in the world. Look at the beating they are receiving in the recent immigrant riots.
If we end up hiding our heads in the sand like you are suggesting we are only delaying the inevitable problems.

As for the immigration rates changing, maybe they will. I don't know.
Why do you expect a drastic shift? Any data to back it up?

He raises some valid points, but overall, he's like many people in the western world, always takes the side of the arguement which is against the White/Christian/Westerner etc.

But like you said, it always ends up coming back that its the western worlds "fault" all the time, we alienate them, we dont do enough to understand, we're islamophobic, we're racist, we drive them to extremism, its our political system etc, then that mixes with Muslim sentiment, who on the whole usually always "root for their own" (yet its westerners are supposedly more likely with the Us and them mentality, even though westerners seem to on average have far more differing view points)

He defends someone on here who contantly attempts to find articles that shift the blame onto the west/non-Muslims, also the same person who in their own way tried to defend totaltarian "blashpemy laws", yet actually attempts to defend her as a reasonable person. Yet we know all too well if it was a Christian with equivilent views, he'd be fully against them and never dream of "sticking up for them".

Then we wonder why extremism is on the rise, we got a community with a victim mentality, with a violent element that can "do no wrong" and we've got westerners who feed that mentality, when trying to challange some of the root causes of the problem, its just thrown back that "Christianity is just as bad" (Of course we do wrong, but anybody with a grasp of mathematics will see currently there is no way as much of a problem within Christian communities), the arguement also shifts onto what the "white racists" are doing.

They claim we exagerrate, make over blown claims and find scapegoats (which lets admit it, we all do), but then themselves make overblown assertions about level of Islamaphobia and racism and try to make out every other person is an EDL member or something, basically, the "white racist" is the scapegoat they use.

 

[like eagleswings]

one day you want guns banned after a terrible massacre, the next your telling other countrys to adopt your gun laws. as an answer to a problem.
We dont want your gun culture. one of the reasons we are called GREAT britain.

 

[Oafman]

But like you said, it always ends up coming back that its the western worlds "fault" all the time, we alienate them, we dont do enough to understand, we're islamophobic, we're racist, we drive them to extremism, its our political system etc,

You missed one out: we bomb their families and invade their countries.

 

[Gadarene]

He raises some valid points

And hell freezes over.

Do tell. I'm genuinely curious. I didn't think I was having any effect on you at all

but overall, he's like many people in the western world, always takes the side of the arguement which is against the White/Christian/Westerner etc.

Nope. Again, if you paid attention for a moment, you would realise this.

But like you said, it always ends up coming back that its the western worlds "fault" all the time, we alienate them, we dont do enough to understand, we're islamophobic, we're racist, we drive them to extremism, its our political system etc, then that mixes with Muslim sentiment, who on the whole usually always "root for their own" (yet its westerners are supposedly more likely with the Us and them mentality, even though westerners seem to on average have far more differing view points)

Er...did you miss the part where I said that I thought EVERYONE did this? "Everyone" includes the subsets of "westerners" and "non-westerners". In case that needed clarifying.

Again - do pay attention, won't you?

He defends someone on here who contantly attempts to find articles that shift the blame onto the west/non-Muslims, also the same person who in their own way tried to defend totaltarian "blashpemy laws", yet actually attempts to defend her as a reasonable person. Yet we know all too well if it was a Christian with equivilent views, he'd be fully against them and never dream of "sticking up for them".

Nope, I'm against blasphemy laws in all forms, and while I had no idea LBAM was in favour of them, it was not under discussion here, does not impact anything I said to defend her here, nor does it imply anything about my opinions on blasphemy laws (although given how readily you misrepresented her here, I wouldn't be surprised if you've done it again with her opinions on this topic too).

Why are you assuming what my opinions are when you haven't even seen me discuss them?

For the record - how else can I point out how daft I think BOTH of your religions are if there are blasphemy laws about?

Then we wonder why extremism is on the rise, we got a community with a victim mentality, with a violent element that can "do no wrong" and we've got westerners who feed that mentality, when trying to challange some of the root causes of the problem, its just thrown back that "Christianity is just as bad" (Of course we do wrong, but anybody with a grasp of mathematics will see currently there is no way as much of a problem within Christian communities)

Which was never the criterion by which I said they were both as bad - again, all this post is doing is demonstrating how little you are paying attention.

It was never based on the relative numbers of violent acts, but how religious opinions are formed among each group, which is effectively identical - subjective readings of a core text believed to be divine revelation.

If you actually care to have your misunderstanding corrected, do let me know.

the arguement also shifts onto what the "white racists" are doing.

Yeah, usually to point out how they aren't being helpful? We've had attacks on mosques, which I referred to and which you yourself IN THIS THREAD said was a bad idea. Sounds like we're in agreement, but here you are complaining as ever. Why?