North London incident
Despicable. Xenophoia is not cool. It's very unfortunate that there seems to be a rise in these types of incidents. It seems to be the kind of thing ISIS wants to happen.
North London incident
Despicable. Xenophoia is not cool. It's very unfortunate that there seems to be a rise in these types of incidents. It seems to be the kind of thing ISIS wants to happen.
Definite double standard from the media on this. Just last week a muslim man did this exact same thing, but we hardly heard a peep. The old 'race card' was played in defense and as usual it worked! It seems if you're not white, you can say your feelings were hurt because some nasty words were said to you and that excuses attempted murder, or in his case, running over a group on the pavement.
He got five years, which is going to be a lot less than this new guy gets, even though it's the exact same thing, although there has been a death.
This same thing happens this time and it's terrorism apparently.
Also, with the Manchester bombing, it was "not all muslims" and "don't look back in anger" and love and acceptance reported by the MSM mouthpiece, now it's "xenophobe, terrorist, evil, working class right-wingers [all of them]"
Double standards.
Also, it's pointless using the Guardian as a news source, it's not news, it's just propaganda all the time. It's the left version of Fox news.
Last edited by Limey; 06-19-2017 at 08:29 PM.
Well, I was hoping we could just discuss the event without using it as political football, but evidently that's not going to happen.
I heard plenty about it, even from sources like MSNBC. Don't know what news you've been watching.Originally Posted by Limey
Umm, I don't remember anyone excusing that or saying that it was ok. I could definitely imagine some ultra far-left types saying it, but I don't hang around such people. And actually, I've heard a lot of Muslims condemn it. I happen to know a lot of Muslims in graduate school, and none of them support terror.The old 'race card' was played in defense and as usual it worked! It seems if you're not white, you can say your feelings were hurt because some nasty words were said to you and that excuses attempted murder, or in his case, running over a group on the pavement.
It's weird that you can't do the same thing, and a little unnerving. It almost seems like you support what happened, but I hope I'm wrong.
Because it is terrorism? Why should the race or religion of the person matter in determining whether something is terrorism? Are you really arguing that if someone reads a Sam Harris book and gets motivated to blow up a church, that shouldn't be called terrorism? Frankly, I'm glad that mainstream society has stopped applying a double standard in that matter.This same thing happens this time and it's terrorism apparently.
As well as it should, because violence shouldn't be supported, even if it comes from people who look like you.Also, with the Manchester bombing, it was "not all muslims" and "don't look back in anger" and love and acceptance reported by the MSM mouthpiece, now it's "xenophobe, terrorist, evil, working class right-wingers [all of them]"
That's a classic fallacy, using the metric of who said something as a means to discredit information rather than the content of what was actually said.Also, it's pointless using the Guardian as a news source, it's not news, it's just propaganda all the time. It's the left version of Fox news.
Sure, and the same was true with 9/11. Those who benefit from conflict want more conflict.
I don't understand why more people can't see that. I guess self-righteous belligerence is popular no matter what your belief system is, or even if you don't have a belief system at all.
Perhaps those who want conflict are becoming adept at pushing our buttons. If so, the same approaches that are used to limit influence of commercial messaging - if any - may be effective.
My hunch is treating most 'terrorism' as normal crime and leaving it to law enforcement would be better than continually waving it in our face and creating an enormous security apparatus (or perhaps repurposing an enormous security apparatus).
It's counter productive, as this kind of revenge type strike just stirs up more shit (which is what the terrorists want). It's not totally unsurprising though.
Still, Limey has a point, this guy should be painted as a crazy outlier (same as other extremists) but there will be a disproportionate hue and cry about evil white attitudes.
Obviously part of the larger plan to incite race wars.
I don't buy it. The only race I blame are the blue bloods.
"One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage"
- Sun Tzu
Just don't look?
Yes, but that would require not running around like chickens with our heads cut off and both parties like having that kind of security apparatus around.My hunch is treating most 'terrorism' as normal crime and leaving it to law enforcement would be better than continually waving it in our face and creating an enormous security apparatus (or perhaps repurposing an enormous security apparatus).
No, he doesn't. In contrast to the other terrorist attacks, Trump has said nothing about the attack on London. Who could be a bigger influencer than the President of the United States?
I think it's more like it satisfies a lot of people to cause violence and act out on their rage. And of course, one act inspires a counter action and so forth, in a never-ending feedback loop.
He's white, so he's not a "terrorist", he's just "jobless and mentally unstable"
We're all being played.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...radicalisationMay and Macron plan joint crackdown on online terror
British PM and French president to tackle radicalisation with fines for tech companies that do not take action
French President Emmanuel Macron speaks with Prime Minister Theresa May during a bilateral meeting at San Domenico Palace Hotel in Taormina , Italy.
Theresa May will attempt to reassert control over the political agenda by agreeing a new counter-terror strategy with the French president, vowing to fine tech companies such as Facebook and Google if they do not step up efforts to combat online radicalisation.
The prime minister and Emmanuel Macron will launch a joint campaign on Tuesday to tackle online radicalisation, a personal priority of the prime minister from her time as home secretary and a comfortable agenda for the pair to agree upon before Brexit negotiations begin next week.
In particular, the two say they intend to create a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove inflammatory content, which could include penalties such as fines.
Last edited by Sinny; Yesterday at 08:28 AM.
"One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage"
- Sun Tzu
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks