General Chat / Shootings and explosions in Paris 11/13/2015

I can't seem to grasp what you're saying here. I'm saying that Islam isn't a bigger threat than any other religion because terrorism is only defined socially. A terrorist attack might not be considered a terrorist attack if the attacker is not Muslim and so the numbers are skewed. 

I know what you're saying, I just think it's ludicrous.

I can't seem to grasp what you're saying here. I'm saying that Islam isn't a bigger threat than any other religion because terrorism is only defined socially. A terrorist attack might not be considered a terrorist attack if the attacker is not Muslim and so the numbers are skewed.

Terrorism isn't "defined socially", terrorism has a pretty clear definition which I copied and pasted earlier and no other religious or ideological group carries out attacks that fit that definition at nearly the same disproportionate rate as this one.

Again, it's still a small percentage and I'm completely open to accepting refugees and completely against this stupid travel ban but to pretend that there isn't a unique problem with Islam specifically in the west in regards to terrorism is delusional.

go back two pages and read the link i posted. white supremacists (an ideological group) are responsible for more terrorism in the US than muslims. thats just the fucking numbers. you can be an idiot and argue against the math all you want but please stop pretending you're doing anything but that.

 

Also, as a student of linguistics, it is my unfortunately my responsibility to inform you that dictionaries are bullshit and you can absolutely never, under any circumstances, cite a dictionary definition as evidence in an argument

Whites better be responsible for more Terrorism then Muslims in the US. They outnumber them by at least 50 to 1, and that number is probably higher.

I also like how we just discount any Terrorist act that doesn't result in death and conveniently ignore the largest act of terrorism in the last 50 years so are numbers look nice. But at this point I couldn't give a fuck about who committed a terrorist act, doesn't matter if they are green, blue, red, grey, whatever... But somethings have got to change.

Whites better be responsible for more Terrorism then Muslims in the US. They outnumber them by at least 50 to 1, and that number is probably higher.

 

did i stutter? nobody said anything about "whites". right wing groups and white supremacists.

 

 

politics, culture, society, every aspect of the world- at the moment it is merely a web of connected systems of violence. this will never, ever end so long as capitalist imperial powers exist

go back two pages and read the link i posted. white supremacists (an ideological group) are responsible for more terrorism in the US than muslims. thats just the fucking numbers. you can be an idiot and argue against the math all you want but please stop pretending you're doing anything but that.
 
Also, as a student of linguistics, it is my unfortunately my responsibility to inform you that dictionaries are bullshit and you can absolutely never, under any circumstances, cite a dictionary definition as evidence in an argument

... right, so like I said, you're trying to win the argument by applying the word "terrorism" to things that nobody would ever apply it to and then suggesting that using a word's actual definition to define it is somehow a far fetched idea. Lol

Anyway, I'm out of here if you've somehow resorted to name calling. Keep yelling and calling people idiots, but like I said... if the left continues to ignore this unfortunate reality entirely then the right is going to keep winning. It's a shame, because their solution is a ridiculous, over-the-top, bigoted reaction to the problem but it's also a reality.

Bill, I guess people like me are not refusing to acknowledge the problem. Usually when this problem is adressed it is done in a manner that I refuse to stand behind. Most notable the notion that Islam is a religion that is inherently more violent than others. I agree that at least in my perception the amount of muslim terrorism is disproportionate, at least when you limit the definition to large scale attacks. But you can't just point at statistics and draw conclusions... It makes sense that muslim attacks are overrepresented. A large portion of the Islamic World is in turmoil and the West is partly responsible for that. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but in the grans scheme of things I'd like to think of this as recoil. If you go a few decades back in time you'll see that the nature of terrorism attacks will shift to whatever what conflict were playing at that time. Half a century ago, The Troubles made hundreds of casualties in the UK. Spain had similar problems with similar numbers. I expected that a few decades from now, if things quiet down a little, terrorism will come from a different direction yet again.

But what we're saying is it isn't disproportionate, but the lens is being shone on Muslims to make it look as though that is the case

I can't seem to grasp what you're saying here. I'm saying that Islam isn't a bigger threat than any other religion because terrorism is only defined socially. A terrorist attack might not be considered a terrorist attack if the attacker is not Muslim and so the numbers are skewed.

By what metric do you get that it isn't disproportionate? Take the word "terrorism" and replace it with any act of violence against another person and show me where the middle east isn't topping. You can argue the reasons of which why it is disproportionate (like Liam did), but I cannot see your reasoning to say muslims in most countries are disproportionately more prone to violence.

Bill, I guess people like me are not refusing to acknowledge the problem. Usually when this problem is adressed it is done in a manner that I refuse to stand behind. Most notable the notion that Islam is a religion that is inherently more violent than others. I agree that at least in my perception the amount of muslim terrorism is disproportionate, at least when you limit the definition to large scale attacks. But you can't just point at statistics and draw conclusions... It makes sense that muslim attacks are overrepresented. A large portion of the Islamic World is in turmoil and the West is partly responsible for that. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but in the grans scheme of things I'd like to think of this as recoil. If you go a few decades back in time you'll see that the nature of terrorism attacks will shift to whatever what conflict were playing at that time. Half a century ago, The Troubles made hundreds of casualties in the UK. Spain had similar problems with similar numbers. I expected that a few decades from now, if things quiet down a little, terrorism will come from a different direction yet again.

Liam makes a very good counterpoint here that a lot of the radicalization of the middle east was done in reaction to decades of imperalism and whatnot... However you cannot use this to explain religious sect (sunni-shiite) conflict over 1000 years old, traditions such as honor killings and FGM among other legitimized violence that comes straight from a fundamentalist interpretation of islamic texts. And you are right: look at Iran in the 70s before radicalization kicked in. It looked like it was well on its way to becoming westernized. But even this radicalization and violence is only partly the West's fault. It's clear that many do not want to live the superior western way of life (This is better in countries like the USA BTW than it is with European countries that are taking in mostly Syrian males).

did i stutter? nobody said anything about "whites". right wing groups and white supremacists.
politics, culture, society, every aspect of the world- at the moment it is merely a web of connected systems of violence. this will never, ever end so long as capitalist imperial powers exist

If you're going to use intersectionality as an argument, you must then have to claim that islam and the behavior of believing in it and belonging to islamic communities does play a large role in the "connected system of violence". And what would be better in your eyes than a "capitalist" power? A socialist one that is equally, if not more, authoritarian and hellbent on seeking global influence than the powers that be right now?
And yes of course White Supremacists in the USA are going to be more at fault for terrorism than muslims, even perhaps at the per capita level. Europe has the muslim immigration issue, not the United States. Very little terrorism in the US is caused by religion, but mostly due to fringe politics and crazy ideologues.

I can't see where coasterbill is really wrong here though.

I wouldn't say under attack, just some idiot drove a land rover into a pavement on a bridge and then stabbed a police officer.

Of course it's not great, but it's being a bit over dramatised, it really isn't on the same scale as any of the other 'terror' attacks.

 

 

That we get used to this kinds of attacks is the worst part... He drove with intention to hit people, attacked the police while trying to get into the parliament. What would you have said if he succeeded in that?! I don't think it is dramatized at all, exactly one year after the Brussels attack...

 

Religion is stupid. All religions.  

I'm fine by the way. Thanks for asking

To be honest if you didn't know something had happened yesterday you'd never know. London seems pretty normal today.

white supremacists (an ideological group) are responsible for more terrorism in the US than muslims. thats just the fucking numbers. you can be an idiot and argue against the math all you want but please stop pretending you're doing anything but that.

 

Okay, I just read the article. It opens by saying "At least 48 people have been killed stateside by right-wing extremists in the 14 years since since the September 11 attacks — almost twice as many as were killed by self-identified jihadists in that time"

 

First of all, I love that it begins immediately after 9/11 so you can conveniently ignore the 2,996 people that you'd have to include if you started the "study" just one day earlier. It also doesn't include the people who died years later from complications from working at ground zero.

 

More importantly though, it's no longer relevant because of when it was written...

 

""At least 48 people have been killed stateside by right-wing extremists in the 14 years since since the September 11 attacks — almost twice as many as were killed by self-identified jihadists in that time""

 

49 people ALONE were killed at the Pulse nightclub shooting by a guy who called 9-1-1 immediately before the attack to swear allegiance to the Islamic state.

 

Your numbers are misleading as hell if you go by a 2 year old article. The San Bernardino attack also happened after that article was written.

 

Bill, I guess people like me are not refusing to acknowledge the problem. Usually when this problem is adressed it is done in a manner that I refuse to stand behind.

 

I can understand that. Again, I totally stand behind the vast majority of Muslims in the west and completely support the refugee program. While the number of people in that specific religion who become radicalized is disproportionately high, it's still a tiny percentage and I would never support the fear mongering of the right or lumping all Muslims together. I just can't stand it when so many people on the left refuse to ever acknowledge that it's happening and instead jump to point out any insistence of non-Muslims killing people as if it somehow makes the problem go away.

 

You also bring up some great points as to why it's happening. That may very well be, I feel like that could be a productive discussion that may lead to some solutions which is part of my frustration with the fact that the left tries their best to turn a blind eye to the problem and never let the discussion take place.

I would have gone shopping with my mother in Antwerp (Belgium) today, but in the end we decided not to go. I just heard an attack has been thwarted in Antwerp today. Apparently a muslim tried to drive through the busiest shopping street. Luckily, nobody got hurt and the terrorist got arrested. Feels kind of weird that I could have been walking there today...

If you're going to use intersectionality as an argument, you must then have to claim that islam and the behavior of believing in it and belonging to islamic communities does play a large role in the "connected system of violence".

 

it doesn't. i brought that up specifically to highlight that these are power struggles. human history is a series of grabs for power by individuals and groups of individuals, motivated for self gain, and justified under various banners. i don't see particular pertinence to the metaphysical belief system they've chosen to justify their political violence.

 

 

 

And what would be better in your eyes than a "capitalist" power? A socialist one that is equally, if not more, authoritarian and hellbent on seeking global influence than the powers that be right now?

 

there is zero difference between good and bad things

 

 

 

 

i tried to play lazy high school debate club last night cuz i was tired, but flat out: I don't care very much about terrorism. one million-plus innocent iraqi civilians were murdered by U.S. gov in the wake of 9/11. countless global governments have had their administrations toppled by western meddling. all of your clothes were made by slaves. this is a world of constant violence. and unfortunately, sometimes you will have to see it. sorry.

I totally agree with you on how disastrous the "war in iraq" was, dr. Dude

hey i apologize for being an asshole in this thread. these conversations get heated for me because several members of my extended family are muslim americans and i fear for them, as i fear for anybody who might be a victim to violence due to suspicion. in the heat and thrill of an argument i've zeroed in on details i really only had half-arguments for, an approach that typically leads me to simply use venomous language to finish backing up my argument. i sincerely apologize for that.

 

my basic point is that "terrorism" is a vague concept used to dictate which types of violence are and arent acceptable. like "genocide", many world organizations have offered an official definition, but they vary and none are "correct". this is how all words work. if you asked me, for instance, for examples of christian terrorists, I would pretentiously (but seriously) respond by saying "every american president". I doubt that would fit your own personal definition.

 

we all have our own overton windows, and we're not going to change each others. i am, flat-out, a literal communist. y'all are presumably not. i'm not going to even pretend i want to do the work to find any shared political ground. it's online, baby. you can't talk politics online. let's all just play rct. again, sorry for being an asshole

 

but before "mic drop" from this thread, i would implore, nay, beg, everyone in this thread to leave loaded, framed terms behind them and consider who truly wields the cudgel of political violence in this world.

It's a common problem people have. When debating, everyone has to dissociate the person from the arguement because even if the person is the least qualified person in the world, their argument still stands unless there are counter arguments. Ad hominem is a terrible thing that is ever so rampant in today's politics

I spent the day out in London today and if you didn't know anything had happened yesterday you wouldn't know anything had happened at all. 

I cant say I've read this whole thread. I have skimmed it though.

 

But this is my thought on the whole thing. 

 

This is London after a terrorist attack in 1993

 

 

A terrorist attack that was multiple times worse than the lone gunman yesterday. A Gunman who I want to point out was born and raised in the UK and was not an immigrant despite what Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins have been saying on US TV. 

 

The picture above is after the bishopsgate bomb planted by an Irish Extremist during the troubles in the 1990s. While the bomb killed less people than the attack yesterday (thanks to a warning phoned to the police before hand) it was a significantly more damaging attack in relation to infrastructure and morale. 

 

The point is London has been hit by terrorist attacks before and while some people (mainly daily mail readers) are xenophobic. The majority of Londoners know London is and always will be a multicultural city. I love the fact that i can go to the station every day and I can see such a wide cross section of humanity from so may countries around the world. I will never blame all of Islam for what happened yesterday just the same way I know all of Ireland wasn't responsible for what happened 20 years ago.

 

I love my city and it wouldn't be the same city without immigrants from the middle east and other muslim countries. Not by half. The vast vast majority are incredible peace loving people who add way more to our society than they take out.

 

Does anyone have a fool proof plan for stopping Terrorism like this? No of course not. The same way no one did in the 1990s. But I know damn well islamophobia isn't the way to deal with this. It will only make things worse. Most muslims are as shocked and appalled by this as I am. 

 

I love this city and this city will stand united against such small minding individuals from whatever religion/ideology they come from. Something i hope at least slightly shown by the images below 

 

This is a selection of images from out tube stations today.

 

 Tubey1.JPG (52.75KB)
downloads: 13

 

 Tubey2.JPG (46.38KB)
downloads: 17

 

 Tubey3.JPG (47.57KB)
downloads: 16

 

 Tubey4.JPG (52.61KB)
downloads: 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most muslims are as shocked and appalled by this as I am.

 

I think this is the core of the problem, because what you are saying here is not true. How many muslims distance themselves from islamic attacks and ideas? Not a lot. At least in my country I can't find them. Where are all the muslims and mosques who oppose their extremists fellow believers? In schools in The Netherlands, terrorist attacks like the one in London are glorified by young muslims. As long as the big majority of muslims in this world don't speak out about the jihad, the religion will be perceived as a bad religion.

That's not true Sulakke. That's such bullshit.

Maybe you can't find them in your country because you don't really speak to Muslims in general. If we would walk through Utrecht together and we would ask the first five Muslims we meet what they think of terrorist attacks I can garantee you that they would distance themselves from it.

Don't base your opinion of people on what you see on the news.

Edit: and why should the majority of Muslims speak out against terrorism? They've got nothing to do with it? Why should they have to answer for terrorists just because they share the same religion.

Don't forget that there were also muslims under the victims of these terror attacks in Europe too. IS is killing muslims in Syria too. Just like any other religion, IS is using religion to gain power over people. It has nothing to do with religion it self. Sadly, Sulakke is right that there are a bunch of idiots under us who glorify the jihad, but I tend to believe that is a minority part of the muslims in our community. But idiots tend to be louder and so more heard than the rest...

 

But denying there's a problem is also wrong. Integration from North-African, Middle-Eastern & Turkish people seems to not have worked properly. I speak for my country of Belgium. Not wanting to sound racist, but it is like it is. And no, not all of them are like that, some did integrate very well and no, I don't want them to break connection with their culture or home country. But seeing so many of those, 2nd or even 3th generation (born here in Belgium), not being able to speak Dutch... some not even able to speak English or French! And other minor culture differences that aren't compatible with our society.

 

I don't think our government should invest in mosques. Or in any religion at all! It seems like a popular belief today that the government should make more time and money for regulate the mosques in our country. So no extremists would be able to preach here anymore. But should be a task of the muslim community itself! No government should be putting money in organising a religion.