London Bridge Atrocity

[trippymonkey]

This happened last night with killers shouting 'This is for Allah'!!!!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=news&oq=news&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j0l4.1744j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-bridge-borough-market-attack-general-election-campaign-suspended-conservatives-labour-latest-a7771711.html

[trippymonkey]

How does one fight against mentally retarded, brainwashed morons who have a fake, weak & incompetent deity who can't do his own dirty-work?

This is the filth we have in the UK, waiting in the sewers to come out now.

It's a real rotten shame for all the decent Muslims we have here as THEY get targeted by other subnormals coming out of the woodwork at the slightest thing.

[Nearly Sane]

I see UKIP are not suspending campaigning. Seems the right decision to me on a number of levels.

[Sriram]

How does one fight against mentally retarded, brainwashed morons who have a fake, weak & incompetent deity who can't do his own dirty-work?

This is the filth we have in the UK, waiting in the sewers to come out now.

It's a real rotten shame for all the decent Muslims we have here as THEY get targeted by other subnormals coming out of the woodwork at the slightest thing.

Yes...there are many good muslims....but how do you identify them? Terrorists are from all groups, classes, age groups and gender. A young pretty girl recently married could be a suicide bomber or a old grandfather type or a educated smart type....anyone. That is the problem. And now that they  are using ordinary everyday equipment for the attacks....its almost impossible to know beforehand.  There is hardly any Intelligence possible. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes...there are many good muslims....but how do you identify them? Terrorists are from all groups, classes, age groups and gender. A young pretty girl recently married could be a suicide bomber or a old grandfather type or a educated smart type....anyone. That is the problem. And now that they  are using ordinary everyday equipment for the attacks....its almost impossible to know beforehand.  There is hardly any Intelligence possible.

Could you provide a breakdown of the numbers of terrorist attacks and their gender, age, educational, religious background to justify your post?

[ekim]

Could you provide a breakdown of the numbers of terrorist attacks and their gender, age, educational, religious background to justify your post?

I think Sriram is just generalising upon how you cannot assume that a particular background or personality type when trying to pre-detect a potential killer.  This article gives quite a good outline of the problem. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

[Nearly Sane]

I think Sriram is just generalising upon how you cannot assume that a particular background or personality type when trying to pre-detect a potential killer.  This article gives quite a good outline of the problem. .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

In which case generalising about being terrorists being Muslim has the same issue, so his post would be internally inconsistent.


And BTW there the link doesn't cover all the attributes Sriram covered.

[jakswan]

In which case generalising about being terrorists being Muslim has the same issue, so his post would be internally inconsistent.


And BTW there the link doesn't cover all the attributes Sriram covered.

Are you suggesting that Islamic inspired terrorism doesn't exist?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you suggesting that Islamic inspired terrorism doesn't exist?

No. But the idea that any such attacks are carried out by such a diverse set of people within that grouping that it prevents any further analysis seems to need justification to me. Anecdotally to my mind, it would seem the terrorist we see in Europe are vastly more likely to be male but Sriram's post would argue against that.

[trippymonkey]

We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.

Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!

[Nearly Sane]

We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.

Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!

Perhaps, perhaps also our habit of supporting 'our enemy's enemy' in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. But again as I have said before, I don't believe in a more ethical (IMO) because it stops terrorist attacks but because it is the right thing to do.

I also think that while we can talk about Islamic inspired attacks, it is much more complex than that. It is one prism through which we can and through which others look at this but there are other issues tie up with that prism such as you highlight about the role of women.

[jakswan]

We do know some ARE female but it seems women are either more useful alive, for breeding more fuckwits, or they're far more intelligent which is why Islamic Law & Muslims seem to want to 'close them of' in some way.
NS
We DO seem to know that there's a certain mentality front here. That even these f-wits see what WE might call innocents as fair game as long as they get the 'bad guys'.

Maybe this reflects a little on what's just happened 'over there' where 'we've' killed innocents too ?!?!?!

There is no moral equivalence, directly targeting civilians and accidently killing civilians.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no moral equivalence, directly targeting civilians and accidently killing civilians.

We aren't dropping bombs accidentally. We are not selling arms to murderers accidentally.

[jakswan]

We aren't dropping bombs accidentally. We are not selling arms to murderers accidentally.

Never claimed any of those things.

[Nearly Sane]

Never claimed any of those things.

Claiming that the collateral deaths of our intentional actions is 'accidentally' leading to deaths when we are aware that it night do is claiming precisely that.

[jakswan]

Claiming that the collateral deaths of our intentional actions is 'accidentally' leading to deaths when we are aware that it night do is claiming precisely that.

You think that accidents are morally equivalent to things done on purpose?

[Nearly Sane]

You think that accidents are morally equivalent to things done on purpose?

I think bombings aren't accidents. You have already accepted that.

[jakswan]

I think bombings aren't accidents. You have already accepted that.

Driving a car isn't an accident.

You seemed to have evaded the question.

[Nearly Sane]

Driving a car isn't an accident.

You seemed to have evaded the question.

The prime purpose of driving a car isn't violence.  I have stated, and you agreed that bombings are not accidents, so when you asked about accidents you made your question irrelevant as you have agreed that is not being talked about.

[jakswan]

The prime purpose of driving a car isn't violence.  I have stated, and you agreed that bombings are not accidents, so when you asked about accidents you made your question irrelevant as you have agreed that is not being talked about.

My point is that there is not moral equivalence between directly targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians.

I don't think it is a controversial point, I'm not claiming dropping bombs is a morally good thing to do.

[john]

My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.

But what needs to happen now is;

Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.

[BeRational]

My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.

But what needs to happen now is;

Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.

Then kill them.

[Nearly Sane]

My point is that there is not moral equivalence between directly targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians.

I don't think it is a controversial point, I'm not claiming dropping bombs is a morally good thing to do.

I know your point, I am disagreeing with your use of the word accident here, and when I said that dropping bombs was not an accident you agreed, so your point is invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

My sense of outrage is a given as is my sympathy for the victims.

But what needs to happen now is;

Jeremy Corbin must befriend these terrorists and talk to them, that's the answer.

As opposed to the party that has been in govt for the last 7 years, and the person who has been Home Secretary and PM in that time. Obviously what we have to vote for is more of that.

[jakswan]

I know your point, I am disagreeing with your use of the word accident here, and when I said that dropping bombs was not an accident you agreed, so your point is invalid.

If I drive my car and hit someone without intending to hurt them, then that is an accident, my intent defines if it is an accident, my driving the car is not an accident.

Choose any word you like, do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and bombing IS in Syria?