Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan - "terror attacks are part and parcel of life in a big city"

[steelcity77]

And why is a guy name Khan the mayor? What a fuckin' joke.

because london now has enough nonwhites to get him elected .. stupid white people

 

[edirp]

because london now has enough nonwhites to get him elected .. stupid white people

Just so unfortunate, huh?

Soon enough, the royalty will be a disaster. Traditions will be lost. Down the road, the prince will be a mulatto who pushes drugs and have countless side hoes. So on and so on. Past kings and queens will be rolling in their graves.

 

[dfoster]

because london now has enough nonwhites to get him elected .. stupid white people

they should have seen this coming decades ago and done something about it. You don't get a million Muslims in the city over night. It's not like they didn't know about Islamic extremism decades ago either.

but in a way their imperialism caused it, starting with taking over India and having an Indian/South Asian culture in England. Whatever culture they conquered, they brought a little pocket of that culture into their own backyard. Now all the little pockets of the conquered people get together and take over.

and don't think all these nice Muslims forgot about England's hand in dismembering the Ottoman Empire either. It wasn't that long ago, British mandate of Palestine, of Iraq and all that shit. Like I said, they made their bed.

Yeah, long live the fuckin queen

 

[2GunTommy]

This is you get when you have Muslims infiltrating your government.

Europeans need to stand up and do something about the complete and total loss of sovereignty.

Any politicians who supports pro muslim policies should be publicly hung.
What are the citizens of these countries waiting for ?

 

[JDragon]

Just think.. If people eventually become desensitized and numb to terrorist attacks, then terrorists are going to need to up their game.

I guess that can be taken in different ways. It may reduce the effectiveness and thus appeal of terrorist attacks to begin with, but it's also a sad state to be in and if it causes larger attacks to happen just in order to get through that numbness then that is obviously bad as well.

I get your point, but if (small-scale) terrorist attacks achieve huge reactions, doesn't that incentivize further attacks just as well?

 

[TheGreatA]

I get your point, but if (small-scale) terrorist attacks achieve huge reactions, doesn't that incentivize further attacks just as well?

The problem is that large-scale terror attacks may cause a large-scale back-lash. I reckon that the radical jihadist "higher-ups" prefer a steady barrage of constant, small-scale terror in comparison to a 9/11. Otherwise there would've been more attempts of that kind.

It keeps their name out there, and achieves the intended effect (to increase Islam's standing in the world through fear) but it doesn't make them (or other Muslims) the target of a world-wide manhunt.

The truth is that jihad and terror is an inseparable, crucial part of the Muslim faith, and without jihadism or terrorism, Islam could not function properly as a religion. The ideology behind achieving this level of terror is quite well-established. Frequent, small-scale killings are a better alternative to mass destruction, because in the case of the latter, instead of achieving the intended effect of "do not fuck with Muslims", you may actually spark a chain reaction which will lead to the reduction of Islamic influence over the world, as non-Muslim people decide to no longer put up with how Islam operates.

Instead of giving tribute, the people may choose to fight back, which would be detrimental to the interests of Muslims world-wide. The motives of jihadists are not much different from the Vikings who greatly preferred to raid small villages, than to spark a legitimate war with a legitimate opponent.

 

[IDL]

I get your point, but if (small-scale) terrorist attacks achieve huge reactions, doesn't that incentivize further attacks just as well?

In theory I think so, but it's hard to gauge. It would make small terrorist attacks less incentivized, but would also make larger scale (by comparison) ones more incentivized. Large scale ones are harder to pull off though, so net effect.. No idea.

 

[Orgasmo]

I'll correct his statement for him.

"Terror attacks are part and parcel of life in a big city with a significant Muslim population."

 

[Falsedawn]

The problem is that large-scale terror attacks may cause a large-scale back-lash. I reckon that the radical jihadist "higher-ups" prefer a steady barrage of constant, small-scale terror in comparison to a 9/11. Otherwise there would've been more attempts of that kind.

It keeps their name out there, and achieves the intended effect (to increase Islam's standing in the world through fear) but it doesn't make them (or other Muslims) the target of a world-wide manhunt.

Also the fact that encouraging small scale attacks exposes them less.

If they can get some domestic mook pumped up on their rhetoric to the point that he'll blow himself up and they can claim it while doing nothing, then that's a free victory for them. They're hoping for the disproportionate response because it radicalizes more people here.

 

[JDragon]

In theory I think so, but it's hard to gauge. It would make small terrorist attacks less incentivized, but would also make larger scale (by comparison) ones more incentivized. Large scale ones are harder to pull off though, so net effect.. No idea.

A population that has grown numb to to terrorist attacks I would say is at least partially in a demoralized state.

Obviosly lange scale attacks have become harder to pull off it seems also due to pervasive surveillance by intelligence srrvices. They still occur but if you look at my averted terrorist attack thread, it seems the trend to smaller attacks is driven both by the short attention span of the public and operational considerations. Bomb building often gets you on the radar. Gun buying often gets you on the radar. Conspiring with others often gets you on the radar. Thus you just take a vehicle and run over a couple infidels.

 

[moneyfight]

Just so unfortunate, huh?

Soon enough, the royalty will be a disaster. Traditions will be lost. Down the road, the prince will be a mulatto who pushes drugs and have countless side hoes. So on and so on. Past kings and queens will be rolling in their graves.

At least the Muslims are telling the British to their face in advance what they plan to do.

That way at least the British have the ability to collectively come together to stop it if they really want to.

 

[RIPWarrior]

Just so unfortunate, huh?

Soon enough, the royalty will be a disaster. Traditions will be lost. Down the road, the prince will be a mulatto who pushes drugs and have countless side hoes. So on and so on. Past kings and queens will be rolling in their graves.

Something tells me you couldn't be happier.

 

[TheGreatA]

Also the fact that encouraging small scale attacks exposes them less.

If they can get some domestic mook pumped up on their rhetoric to the point that he'll blow himself up and they can claim it while doing nothing, then that's a free victory for them. They're hoping for the disproportionate response because it radicalizes more people here.

The key objective is to keep up a steady barrage of attacks, their success rate/achieved devastation being, at best, secondary objectives. Jihad is a war that must be waged forever in order to spread Islam's influence world-wide, and to keep non-Muslims on their feet and submissive whenever they encounter a practising Muslim. The looming threat of violence must always remain present, at the back of one's mind, in such a situation.

That's how jihadism was originally intended and that is how it operates even today. I see "jihad" as similar to Viking raids, the loot acquired having been of secondary importance to the generated terror among the population. This would lead to Vikings eventually being "paid off" by the more civilized, pacifist societies in order to soothe the populations, with tributes called the "Danegeld".

Today, we too are paying "Danegeld" to the Muslims.

 

[moneyfight]

The problem is that large-scale terror attacks may cause a large-scale back-lash. I reckon that the radical jihadist "higher-ups" prefer a steady barrage of constant, small-scale terror in comparison to a 9/11. Otherwise there would've been more attempts of that kind.

It keeps their name out there, and achieves the intended effect (to increase Islam's standing in the world through fear) but it doesn't make them (or other Muslims) the target of a world-wide manhunt.

The truth is that jihad and terror is an inseparable, crucial part of the Muslim faith, and without jihadism or terrorism, Islam could not function properly as a religion. The ideology behind achieving this level of terror is quite well-established. Frequent, small-scale killings are a better alternative to mass destruction, because in the case of the latter, instead of achieving the intended effect of "do not fuck with Muslims", you may actually spark a chain reaction which will lead to the reduction of Islamic influence over the world, as non-Muslim people decide to no longer put up with how Islam operates.

Instead of giving tribute, the people may choose to fight back, which would be detrimental to the interests of Muslims world-wide. The motives of jihadists are not much different from the Vikings who greatly preferred to raid small villages, than to spark a legitimate war with a legitimate opponent.

Excellent post...

 

[edirp]

Something tells me you couldn't be happier.

What makes you say that?

 

[RIPWarrior]

Diversity is just the greatest.

 

[moneyfight]

Only white people say "he will not divide us" while getting killed in cold bold on the street by hostile forces saying their taking over.

 

[deise69]

And it's a totally irrelevant point.



I haven't disproved it because I have no need to - it was never what I was arguing against. I simply pointed out that there's a clear difference between the IRA and Islamic extremists.

 

[superpunch]

Then how does he explain Tokyo, the largest city in the world which has had only 1 small terrorist attack my entire life?

Why does Japan not suffer terrorism while Europe is being attacked every week?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

nm