- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,570
- Reaction score
- 0
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
And why is a guy name Khan the mayor? What a fuckin' joke.
Just so unfortunate, huh?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.because london now has enough nonwhites to get him elected .. stupid white people
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
What makes you say that?Something tells me you couldn't be happier.
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.