Terrorist Attack in London

[RegGaymer]

On the contrary it could be said that your first thought when you hear about this stuff, along with 99% of everyone else, is that these are all legit terror stories to be taken at face value.

It's like a form of backward logic, whereby you have your belief system already in place (terrorism/isis/gunman stories etc.), and look to support your belief regardless of how foolish it may be - instead of using inductive reasoning and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence right in front of you.

It's mad because you admit that several of the pictures look suspect, yet your preexisting beliefs won't allow you to follow through with your read. It's like Knish in rounders seeing the moves but not having the stones to make the plays. All that alimony and child support got you singing from the same hymm sheet as the rest of the sheep.

[Deal]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

[Lord of the Fraud]

On the contrary it could be said that your first thought when you hear about this stuff, along with 99% of everyone else, is that these are all legit terror stories to be taken at face value.

It's like a form of backward logic, whereby you have your belief system already in place (terrorism/isis/gunman stories etc.), and look to support your belief regardless of how foolish it may be - instead of using inductive reasoning and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence right in front of you.

It's mad because you admit that several of the pictures look suspect, yet your preexisting beliefs won't allow you to follow through with your read. It's like Knish in rounders seeing the moves but not having the stones to make the plays. All that alimony and child support got you singing from the same hymm sheet as the rest of the sheep.

Your head must be constantly battered.


The bigger picture concerns me infinitely more than second guessing a random attack. An attack which carried plenty of plausibility anyway imo.

Discret drip-drip propaganda from those in control, laughably has us believing we're the victims in the grand scheme of the past 15-20 years.

I don't need to question EVERYTHING to know why, or how we got here. The bogeyman-like fear has already been well and truly created, especially across the pond.

The West already got their blank cheque. FF aren't really necessary... Add to the fact that Muslims are sorta mad at us for dropping a few thousand tons of munitions onto their heads, meaning it's not difficult to comprehend that sometimes they go a little nuts like that murderess cunt did the other day.

IF the MSM suddenly claimed that the attack was a hoax. It wouldn't dramatically change my position on how I view things. So I honestly couldn't give a fuck if some paranoid prick believes I shit in a field while eating grass all day.

[hongkonger]

Canada didn't ban criticism of Islam you retarded faggot.

Why don't YOU move somewhere that your idiocy can't impact the rest of us?

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/845005705354596353

CUCK NATION MUCH??? MOVE THERE PLZ

The motion was NON-BINDING (not a law) and condemns all racism and religious discrimination. Way to not know what the fuck you're talking about, as always.

[hongkonger]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.

[big dick]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.

fucking this^^^ I SAY AGAIN THIS ^^^

[lewfather]

The organizing principle of any society is for war.

[hongkonger]

The organizing principle of any society is for war.

Donald Sutherland in JFK.

[Dan Druff]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?



Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?

[Dan Druff]

Who said we are just taking about the UK?

And what if we take out Northern Ireland and look at the past 5 years? Who is leading then?

Be honest. Were you surprised when the name of the attacker turned out to be Khalid Massoud?

Funny how many of these type of attacks turn out to be perpetrated by Muslims, even in places with relatively small Muslim populations.

Just in my head, though!

Past 5 years modifier is the one that gives you the results you want. Taking North Ireland out of the equation does nothing to change the top spot (IRA and friends were quite active in their bombing campaign in the main land). The thing is i have no problem with honesty. I don't just randomly forget incidents that i talked about year ago and claim that "every major terrorist act" was done by a muslim in the last few years etc.

I'm not surprised about anything. It happens when you stop assuming things. Were you surprised the attacker turned out to be Adrian Elms?

The last terrorist that was sentenced in the UK was Thomas Mair. That was 4 months ago. Does that surprise you or are we at that point that if it's not a muslim it's not even terrorism?

Yea it's funny how many attacks in the main land UK turned out to be perpetrated my catholics in a 40 year period, even with a relatively small catholic population. Then 15 years ago it just stopped. Nothing major happened to prevalence of Catholicism. There wasn't any kinda purge. No final solution. Could it possible be that we can't use Catholicism to explain or predict terrorist activity. Here's a crazy thought maybe that applies to every major sect of every major religion. Could that possibly make sense since they've all pretty much had their place in the sun regarding acts of terror, jews included.

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to discredit the correct statement that Muslims are far more likely to commit acts of terror in today's western countries.

The IRA was an outlier. How many Catholics in the US or elsewhere do you see committing acts of terror? For whatever reason, the IRA decided to resort to terror tactics on behalf of their cause. However, as wrong as they were, this was a very specific cause, specific conflict, and taking place in a specific country.

Terror attacks are the MO of Muslims. That's why they occur all over the world, and why people jump to the conclusion of "It must be an Arab/Muslim" whenever we hear of terror attacks.

Let's take the US, for example.

Muslims make up 1% of the US population.

Do you think Muslims make up 1% of all terror attacks in the US? Is it even close to 1%?

Let's multiply that figure by 10. Since the year 2000, would you say the percentage of Muslim-committed terror attacks in the US were greater than 10% or less than 10%?

Unless you're trying to make the case that Muslims commit 1% of all US terror attacks (or somewhere near that), then I think it's pretty safe to say that Muslims ARE indeed terror threats.

For some reason this is very difficult for lefties like you to admit, and instead you resort to naming all the non-Muslims who committed acts of terror.

Sure, we've had our Tim McVeighs and our Ted Kaczynskis. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims are a far, far, far greater threat per capita than any other segment of our population.

[hongkonger]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?



Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?

The victims don't, and unlike Americans they are aware what's happening.

[Dan Druff]

You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?



Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?

The victims don't, and unlike Americans they are aware what's happening.

There are unfortunately deaths as a result of war, especially if terrorists use human shields or hide among civilians.

I can understand your raising issue with this, but you can't call it terrorism.

These type of arguments come from the left in order to humanize the Islamic terrorists.

"Sure, these terrorists are bad, but our government is guilty of the same sort of thing in a different way, so you can't hate them for it."

[Deal]

So when counting Terrorist attacks what side of the ledger to you place US drone strikes? For that last 8 years you could blame the black guy. Now you have to own them.

You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?



Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?

You are smart enough (I think) to follow a cause and effect argument.

The US is trying to regain control of regions of the world they have lost control of. The people they kill in order to retain control get a bit pissed off. The act of bombing their schools, hospitals, civilian buildings really doesn't make things any better. The more you marginalize Muslims the more they will defend themselves. Just like Vietnam, there is no way to control the middle east via bombing. Just get the fuck out and let them sort it out. You lost. Oil is not the future anyhow. Quit listening to your war industrial complex. Build up your own country instead of tearing apart other countries.

[sonatine]

obviously i havent read this thread thoroughly because its garbage, but druff im not sure you really understand what a drone strike is like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle9707992/

im actually pro-drone strikes because they are, without question, the best option on the table for this current theaters but honestly, this shit is going to come back on us.



real soon.

[Dan Druff]

You're really placing drone attacks meant to target terrorists in the same category as terror attacks?



Don't know the difference between military strikes and terror attacks?

You are smart enough (I think) to follow a cause and effect argument.

The US is trying to regain control of regions of the world they have lost control of. The people they kill in order to retain control get a bit pissed off. The act of bombing their schools, hospitals, civilian buildings really doesn't make things any better. The more you marginalize Muslims the more they will defend themselves. Just like Vietnam, there is no way to control the middle east via bombing. Just get the fuck out and let them sort it out. You lost. Oil is not the future anyhow. Quit listening to your war industrial complex. Build up your own country instead of tearing apart other countries.

I've heard this argument before, yet most of the terror attacks we see are religious-based, not of the "we feel cornered and are fighting back the only way we know how" variety.

It is foolish to believe that a policy of "We leave Muslims alone, they will leave us alone" will work. That can work with the secular, but not with the fanatically religious.

Any major western power which Islamic fundamentalists see as an affront to Muslim values will be a target.

[Dan Druff]

obviously i havent read this thread thoroughly because its garbage, but druff im not sure you really understand what a drone strike is like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle9707992/

im actually pro-drone strikes because they are, without question, the best option on the table for this current theaters but honestly, this shit is going to come back on us.



real soon.

I'm not understanding the point you're making, then.

If you are pro-drone strikes, yet feel it's going to come back to haunt us, what's the solution?

[Deal]

I've heard this argument before, yet most of the terror attacks we see are religious-based, not of the "we feel cornered and are fighting back the only way we know how" variety.

It is foolish to believe that a policy of "We leave Muslims alone, they will leave us alone" will work. That can work with the secular, but not with the fanatically religious.

Any major western power which Islamic fundamentalists see as an affront to Muslim values will be a target.

The Jew in you should understand that political leaders co opt religion as a recruiting tool.

[gimmick]

Past 5 years modifier is the one that gives you the results you want. Taking North Ireland out of the equation does nothing to change the top spot (IRA and friends were quite active in their bombing campaign in the main land). The thing is i have no problem with honesty. I don't just randomly forget incidents that i talked about year ago and claim that "every major terrorist act" was done by a muslim in the last few years etc.

I'm not surprised about anything. It happens when you stop assuming things. Were you surprised the attacker turned out to be Adrian Elms?

The last terrorist that was sentenced in the UK was Thomas Mair. That was 4 months ago. Does that surprise you or are we at that point that if it's not a muslim it's not even terrorism?

Yea it's funny how many attacks in the main land UK turned out to be perpetrated my catholics in a 40 year period, even with a relatively small catholic population. Then 15 years ago it just stopped. Nothing major happened to prevalence of Catholicism. There wasn't any kinda purge. No final solution. Could it possible be that we can't use Catholicism to explain or predict terrorist activity. Here's a crazy thought maybe that applies to every major sect of every major religion. Could that possibly make sense since they've all pretty much had their place in the sun regarding acts of terror, jews included.

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to discredit the correct statement that Muslims are far more likely to commit acts of terror in today's western countries.

The IRA was an outlier. How many Catholics in the US or elsewhere do you see committing acts of terror? For whatever reason, the IRA decided to resort to terror tactics on behalf of their cause. However, as wrong as they were, this was a very specific cause, specific conflict, and taking place in a specific country.

Terror attacks are the MO of Muslims. That's why they occur all over the world, and why people jump to the conclusion of "It must be an Arab/Muslim" whenever we hear of terror attacks.

Let's take the US, for example.

Muslims make up 1% of the US population.

Do you think Muslims make up 1% of all terror attacks in the US? Is it even close to 1%?

Let's multiply that figure by 10. Since the year 2000, would you say the percentage of Muslim-committed terror attacks in the US were greater than 10% or less than 10%?

Unless you're trying to make the case that Muslims commit 1% of all US terror attacks (or somewhere near that), then I think it's pretty safe to say that Muslims ARE indeed terror threats.

For some reason this is very difficult for lefties like you to admit, and instead you resort to naming all the non-Muslims who committed acts of terror.

Sure, we've had our Tim McVeighs and our Ted Kaczynskis. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims are a far, far, far greater threat per capita than any other segment of our population.

There are quite a few Christian terrorist organizations that are presently active. Lord's Resistance Army and National Liberation Front of Tripura among others. They aren't mainstream Catholics but neither is ISIS a mainstream Sunni organization.

It's cute you think that IRA and Thomas Mair were the only non-Muslims who committed acts of terror. Remember that Sikh that just got out of prison in Canada after 30 years that was the only one sentenced in relation to Air India Flight 182 bomb. That thread where even you participated in wasn't that long ago. There would be no reason to keep naming any non-Muslim terrorists if you'd stop randomly forgetting them or if you'd stop assuming that things you're not aware of didn't happen.

The percentage of Muslims in the US would be more relevant if they were the only ones you'd have to worry about. 911 hijackers weren't exactly permanent residents and since you insist on generalizing all Muslims i think it's only fair that we use all Muslims in this particular exercise in futility. So 1.6 billion it is. And what exactly is the time frame we are using? Once we've finished with this and come to the conclusion that maybe 1 in a million Muslims commits an act of terror how strong do think the predictive powers of a statement like "Muslims ARE indeed terror threats" is? Is it perfectly ok to you that a statement generalizing all Muslims ends up being wrong 999999 times out of a million? For me personally that sounds kinda retarded.

Here's a completely useless fact for you. Gender shows a stronger correlation with terrorism than religion. This has been true since the beginning of recorded history. I believe roughly 50% of people living in US are indeed male and they have committed quite a bit more than 50% of all terrorist attacks.

[hongkonger]

The victims don't, and unlike Americans they are aware what's happening.

There are unfortunately deaths as a result of war, especially if terrorists use human shields or hide among civilians.

I can understand your raising issue with this, but you can't call it terrorism.

These type of arguments come from the left in order to humanize the Islamic terrorists.

"Sure, these terrorists are bad, but our government is guilty of the same sort of thing in a different way, so you can't hate them for it."

I don't equate them but the collateral damage makes it counterproductive. To the victims and their families the distinction is immaterial.

ISIS is not the root of the problem. Islam isn't the root of the problem. Islam is being used to dupe otherwise poor, helpless people into sacrificing themselves on behalf of the people who are really in control over there. To overcome the problem that whole region of the world will have to be brought into the 21st century, which is not going to be achieved with bombs. I'm not sure how it can be done or if we are capable, but I know this isn't the way.

I do know that the way is going to involve educating and empowering the women of the Muslim world, and to do that we are going to need the assistance of all the moderate and progressive Muslims we can possibly enlist to our cause, and that means not insulting them and lumping them in with the extremists.

[sonatine]

obviously i havent read this thread thoroughly because its garbage, but druff im not sure you really understand what a drone strike is like.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle9707992/

im actually pro-drone strikes because they are, without question, the best option on the table for this current theaters but honestly, this shit is going to come back on us.



real soon.

I'm not understanding the point you're making, then.

If you are pro-drone strikes, yet feel it's going to come back to haunt us, what's the solution?

Re-architecting our foreign policy to diminish anti-western/American sentiments, would be an excellent first step.

But in more pragmatic and immediate terms, we need to engage in drone strikes in a way that stops giving an entire generation acute PTSD. Children are coming of age with absolutely zero expectation of survival, no parents, no education, absolutely nothing but the inescapable assertion that to die a martyr will fix everything.

Drone strikes started as a surgical option, that went out the window with Obama and now Trump has turned them into an outright surrogate for high altitude carpet bombing by severing the vertical authentication command structure that (to some extent) modulated their use.