Terrorist attack in London

[mcgoatp4p#1]

I'm sorry but you're going to run your country into an Islamic State. At 13:45 in the Hitchens video I posted, think of what he is saying. Are you going to change your secular society or are they going to change? And if they won't change will you fight back or will you hand them your country?

"I don't listen to any excuses they make for their criminal activity and nor should you. There is no solution, unfortunately. We are involved in a war for civilization. The first solution is to be absolutely clear, we have every right to fight it and what we are fighting is worth fighting for." - Christopher Hitchens

we can fight it with military intervention across the globe with all our allies, but banning refugees is stabbing yourself in the foot. theres absolutely no good that can come from it in the long term. its just ignorant posturing thats repeated by trump when he says 'we need to act tough' but gives absolutely no viable solutions to the problem. i dont understand why you'd want sabotage yourself by doing something that makes everything worse. it might be 'tough' but its also incredibly stupid

also theres no reason to think letting in refugees is gonna turn us into an islamic state especially if they're a minority. the math doesn't work like that lol

 

[Andretti]

I'm sorry but you're going to run your country into an Islamic State. At 13:45 in the Hitchens video I posted, think of what he is saying. Are you going to change your secular society or are they going to change? And if they won't change will you fight back or will you hand them your country?

"I don't listen to any excuses they make for their criminal activity and nor should you. There is no solution, unfortunately. We are involved in a war for civilization. The first solution is to be absolutely clear, we have every right to fight it and what we are fighting is worth fighting for." - Christopher Hitchens

That is very true.

 

[Leagon]

What should happen to you if you leave the religion? If you recognize your prophet as a warlord, fraud and pedophile?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Do you want my general opinion on what should happen when someone leaves a religion? Specifically Islam? Why would my opinion even matter and what does to have to do with the part you quoted? We were talking about masculinity.

 

[in the]

What goalpost did I move? You said Muslim men randomly kill more people than men of other religions. Do you have numbers to back this up?

Let's walk through this retardedness.

Being a man is intrinsic. It's beyond a male's control. (I'm not going to play the trans game here)

Being a Muslims is external, environmental. It is within anyone's control.

You are trying to divert attention away from the fact that this attacker was a Muslim (environmental factor) and make that fact somehow null and void because he was also male (intrinsic factor).

Let's take some other intrinsic factors. What race/ethnicity was this man? After all, that's something that can't be changed. And can we do this with other groups as well? Is the fact that almost half the violent crime in America is committed by black males make any point about their environmental factors moot? Because then you'd have to argue that black males are more prone to violence than non-black males.

See how stupid that argument is? Hell, I could even take it into another direction. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of violent crime is done by men, so working within your own framework (i.e. the apples to orange comparison, the male to religion comparison), the vast majority of terrorist attacks are also done by men (you will notice I never mentioned murder/homicide, that was you, you were trying to move the goalposts). In fact, it's not even close.

So let's look at the data when it comes to religion:

Now let's be consistent. The stats show that men commit the vast majority of violent attacks (including terrorism and murder, so no need to shift the goalposts here). The stats also show that the vast majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims.

Even using your own logic to try to deflect this into a gender issue, all it does is backfire because if you continue to be logically consistent, you also have to admit that Islam is responsible for an even greater percentage of religiously-motivated terrorist attacks resulting in death than attacks other faiths and that difference is even greater than the gender differences of murder (which is insane, given the fact that your gendered comparison only has two variables while the religious comparison has well over a dozen variables). Even within your own framework, Islam is associated with terrorism more than males are murder. So in your attempt to divert the issue away from Islam and onto a red herring of "maleness," you just keep proving how ridiculous it is to try to divert the topic from Islam in the first place.

Males commit 90.3% of murders.
Muslims commit 82.5 of religiously motivated terrorist attacks, but the actual percentage of victims is much, much higher for Islamic extremism than all other religiously-motivated extremist attacks combined. Plus, that chart above shows politically-motivated acts of extremism and even then, Islamic extremism dwarfs all the others combined.

Your point is moot even when comparing apples to oranges.

Just because you keep saying this doesnt make it true. The vast majority of modern sociology would disagree with you.

Oh, sociology. A well-respected field of empirical hard science.

I bow to the field's infinite wisdom.

 

[Blackened]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Do you want my general opinion on what should happen when someone leaves a religion? Specifically Islam? Why would my opinion even matter and what does to have to do with the part you quoted? We were talking about masculinity.

What does the holy book say? Not your opinion.

 

[Blackened]

Oh, sociology. A well-respected field of empirical hard science.

I bow to the field's infinite wisdom.

Those in the fields of "social sciences" should find honest work.

 

[cabal]

, but banning refugees is stabbing yourself in the foot. theres absolutely no good that can come from it in the long term.l

At least the west may control them in order to avoid mass raping, violence of every kind, distinguish a real refugee by an immigrant that has no right to come here because his country has no true war or famine or plagues.
I don't see how blind support all of the newcomers, tollerate the violences, dissolving autoctone Christianism , can work in the long term..

 

[Blackened]

we can fight it with military intervention across the globe with all our allies, but banning refugees is stabbing yourself in the foot. theres absolutely no good that can come from it in the long term. its just ignorant posturing thats repeated by trump when he says 'we need to act tough' but gives absolutely no viable solutions to the problem. i dont understand why you'd want sabotage yourself by doing something that makes everything worse. it might be 'tough' but its also incredibly stupid

also theres no reason to think letting in refugees is gonna turn us into an islamic state especially if they're a minority. the math doesn't work like that lol

Actually the math is like that, considering the function of islamic births is exponentially one order of magnitude greater than that of their native counterparts in the U.K.. If you want to go into the math.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bles-decade-immigration-birth-rates-soar.html

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census


And this has fuck all to do with Trump. Note the date on the article? Way before Trump decided to run for president (and we are talking about the U.K., so I don't see what Trump has to do with anything).

And you have no reason to suspect the Islamic fascism will stop at the boarder of the United States after taking over the continent of Europe.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I hope he gets water bo....a proper interrogation.

Bong, right?

 

[in the]

Those in the fields of "social sciences" should find honest work.

Like most fields of study, there are positives and negatives. The negatives of social sciences are numerous, but I wouldn't throw the entire field out. It's just that by definition, you're dealing with social trends/tendencies and not empirically-proven data, therefore there's not much hard scientific validity in the field.

 

[Leagon]

Let's walk through this retardedness.

Being a man is intrinsic. It's beyond a male's control. (I'm not going to play the trans game here)

Your premise is flawed. Naturally, your conclusion is also flawed.

Being a man does not inherently follow from being male. "Being a man" differs by culture and era and yet being a "male" doesn't. If you dont understand this distinction, that would explain why you're having teouble understand my analogy.

The rest of your post follows from this incorrect premise.

Hell, I could even take it into another direction. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of violent crime is done by men, so working within your own framework (i.e. the apples to orange comparison, the male to religion comparison), the vast majority of terrorist attacks are also done by men (you will notice I never mentioned murder/homicide, that was you, you were trying to move the goalposts).

Lol. I'm on my phone and its difficult to quote, so go back and read your own post. You cant even remember your own argument. You said "killing". I said "killing".

So let's look at the data when it comes to religion:

But...thats not a chart of religions, hence the absence of ALL of the world's major religions, except Islam. First you said that Islamic men comit more random killings than atheism and Christianity, no you're backtracking to say that Islamic men commit more random killings than...anti-Castroism? Are you being for real?

Even using your own logic to try to deflect this into a gender issue, all it does is backfire because if you continue to be logically consistent, you also have to admit that Islam is responsible for an even greater percentage of religiously-motivated terrorist attacks resulting in death than attacks other faiths and that difference is even greater than the gender differences of murder (which is insane, given the fact that your gendered comparison only has two variables while the religious comparison has well over a dozen variables). Even within your own framework, Islam is associated with terrorism more than males are murder. So in your attempt to divert the issue away from Islam and onto a red herring of "maleness," you just keep proving how ridiculous it is to try to divert the topic from Islam in the first place.

We were discussing "killing random people," per your own wording. Now we're discussing religiously-motivated terrorism? Pick a topic and lets stick to it. I've never disagreed that Islamic men commit the majority of religiously-motivated terrorism.

Oh, sociology. A well-respected field of empirical hard science.

I bow to the field's infinite wisdom.

Oh, i'm sorry Dr. sodapopinski. Let me find a peer-reviewed wikipedia chart to link you to.

 

[Leagon]

What does the holy book say? Not your opinion.

Lol...how tf would I know? I don't know arabic. I've never read the Koran.

Edit: Or are you asking about the Bible? You havent specified.

 

[Blackened]

Like most fields of study, there are positives and negatives. The negatives of social sciences are numerous, but I wouldn't throw the entire field out. It's just that by definition, you're dealing with social trends/tendencies and not empirically-proven data, therefore there's not much hard scientific validity in the field.

Simple systems in the hard sciences don't hold up much of the time, though theory would suggest otherwise.

Given what I've seen in the hard sciences, with simple systems like the flow of electrons or formation of chemical bonds, I tend take things said by the social sciences (which are obscenely complex) as a load of quackery. At best, they can make correlations, rarely they can form a mechanism of action. Aside from a handful of cases you can tell by reading the abstracts their conclusions are just pulled out of their ass. I say this as someone who has pulled conclusions out of his ass before.

 

[squeezewax]

I don't see why banning muslim immigration for a while is a bad thing? Terrorists are almost all muslims these days. We cannot really check the background of most refugees as many turn up without any personal documents.
Of course some would be with isis, thats common sense. Why is it ok if its only a few that are? Isn't that too many?

So many come to the West and complain about being marginalized in our society[i wonder why?] so its not like the West is a good fit for them anyway. Considering islam cannot co-exist with a democracy should tell everyone islam isn't going to fit into our society.

 

[Blackened]

I don't see why banning muslim immigration for a while is a bad thing? Terrorists are almost all muslims these days. We cannot really check the background of most refugees as many turn up without any personal documents.
Of course some would be with isis, thats common sense. Why is it ok if its only a few that are? Isn't that too many?

So many come to the West and complain about being marginalized in our society[i wonder why?] so its not like the West is a good fit for them anyway. Considering islam cannot co-exist with a democracy should tell everyone islam isn't going to fit into our society.

Yeah there should definitely be a "see if you actually want to come here" place for them to try it first.

Like, why not fix the country we destroyed and give them their own land where they can have sovereignty. Oh wait... thanks Obama!

 

[Teen Wolf]

A man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a US citizen was killed and five other people were injured in a knife attack in central London.

Police believe the attack in Russell Square on Wednesday was "spontaneous", with victims "selected at random".

The woman who died was thought to be in her 60s. The injured people were from Britain, America, Israel and Australia.

Police arrested a 19-year-old Norwegian national of Somali origin. They say there is no evidence of radicalisation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36972126

 

[ehtheist]

They're in London...... He'll get tea and crumpets, a visit from the mayor, and an "all you can rape" one week vacation in Sweden.

So what, are they sending him to a university campus for a week?

 

[in the]

Your premise is flawed. Naturally, your conclusion is also flawed.

Being a man does not inherently follow from being male. "Being a man" differs by culture and era and yet being a "male" doesn't. If you dont understand this distinction, that would explain why you're having teouble understand my analogy.

The rest of your post follows from this incorrect premise.

I'm not even going to argue this. It's retarded parsing at the highest level. Your spiel doesn't even reach the level of speciousness.

Lol. I'm on my phone and its difficult to quote, so go back and read your own post. You cant even remember your own argument. You said "killing". I said "killing".


But...thats not a chart of religions, hence the absence of ALL of the world's major religions, except Islam. First you said that Islamic men comit more random killings than atheism and Christianity, no you're backtracking to say that Islamic men commit more random killings than...anti-Castroism? Are you being for real?

You know why there's an absence of ALL of the world's major religions?

Take a wild guess. I bet you can't guess why. I bet you can never guess why "Christian terrorism" and "Buddhist terrorism" isn't on the list... which would bring the entire conversation back to square one, an earlier post you chose to ignore.

Do you really need me to write all of that again? Or are you purposely being obtuse? I'm not really meaning to be an asshole but there's no way I could write that any clearer.

You want to spin this into a debate on men.

Men murder at a rate of about 90%.

This attack was religiously motivated terrorism (unless the facts change, in which case we'll have to pick this up during the next Islamic terrorist attack, which should be pretty soon).

Of all religiously motivated terrorism, the death total in the name of Islam is much greater than 90%.

Even including politically-motivated terrorism (which isn't the point - as if I need to clarify that yet again, but just to drive home the point you seem incapable of attempting to understand), Islamic terrorism still kills more than 90%.

Using your own logic, Islam kills more as a percentage of extremist attacks than men kill as a whole. So let's please drop this shallow attempt to throw a red herring into the mix.

We were discussing "killing random people," per your own wording. Now we're discussing religiously-motivated terrorism? Pick a topic and lets stick to it. I've never disagreed that Islamic men commit the majority of religiously-motivated terrorism.

We are literally in a thread about terrorism. I never mentioned murder and I figured you'd be able to deduce I was talking about terrorism when I mentioned killing random people. Even then, all the points listed above still stand. If you're going to say the vast majority of terrorist attacks that lead to casualties/fatalities are committed by men, you also have to be logically consistent and admit the vast majority of terrorist-related casualties/fatalities are done by Muslims - even grouping in politically-motivated terrorism. Or is this another red herring, trying to blindly look at all murders and looping terrorism in with that? It's really hard to understand what you're even arguing. It all seems like a desperate, poor attempt to deflect the point away from Islamic terrorism.

But hey, keep moving them goalposts. You should score eventually.

Oh, i'm sorry Dr. sodapopinski. Let me find a peer-reviewed wikipedia chart to link you to.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Some news outlets over here are really pushing the 'Norwegian' angle while refusing to state that while this guy was a Norwegian citizen, his ethnic background/religion is anything but Scandinavian.

We all know what this guy was. The news outlets are running with him being Norwegian to avoid having to admit there's been a terrorist attack on our turf by a Muslim, and are also drumming in that he had mental problems rather than admit the true motive behind his attack (which lets be honest, is 99% likely to be that he's a Muslim who doesn't like non-Muslims).

 

[cabal]

the guy is norwegian ( in small letters: somalian origins) with mental issues.