Terrorism

[toonotl 2406]

I think this is an interesting new slant on the terrorism issue:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart

 

The radicalisation of young, white men. We've had some examples of this over time (Breivik, Rodgers, now Mair (granted he wasn't young), etc). There's no religious factor there, so why are these guys doing what they're doing? Breivik makes clear he was acting in defence of Europe against a Muslim invasion - which sounds like the kind of thing an Islamic terrorist would say, just turned on its head.

I don't accept that the alt-right is in anyway comparable to Islamic terror groups.

 

The alt-right is a bunch of dweeby nerds on the internet. I don't think they're 'radicalised' now or ever will be. The alt-right are trolls. Not terrorists, ffs.

 

The Guardian, man. Are you taking them seriously? Get it a grip. It's a leftist rag pushing an anti-West, social-Marxist agenda. I expect better from you. This is HF levels of article sharing.

 

What's next? An Intercept article from Glen Greenwald about the grandness of El Presidente Castro?

[toonotl 2406]

 

Like Trump, it's best for you not to be burdened by research and evidence. Just go with your gut instinct and claims that reinforce you prejudiced world view.

Few things:

 

1. It's not 'gut instinct' it's the literal primary document of ISIS which I'm citing. Meanwhile, your statistics don't even deal with the issue. 'Lone wolf terror in the west' is not ISIS, you dullard.

 

2. You are making the claim that ISIS are wrong about their own stated beliefs and motivations. You are claiming to be a mind reader. You are making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You show no evidence to refute the claim. I worry you don't even understand the topic of discussion. You're a waste of my time.

 

3. You lost the argument so you call me a bigot. You know what, fuck you, you thick headed, two-bit, spindly cunt. You like making tables with stats and bullshit like an unfortunately stubby-fingered, tone deaf Malmsteen, but fuck me if you can formulate any idea of what your stats actually mean. Go fuck yourself. I'm not a bigot, you cunt. Typical of your kind to throw accusations of bigotry at arguments you can't win with facts.

 

I'm getting sick of this cunt calling me and others a bigot all the time when he makes a fool of himself.

[Dr Gloom 19740]

[Rayvin 4949]

I don't accept that the alt-right is in anyway comparable to Islamic terror groups.

 

The alt-right is a bunch of dweeby nerds on the internet. I don't think they're 'radicalised' now or ever will be. The alt-right are trolls. Not terrorists, ffs.

 

The Guardian, man. Are you taking them seriously? Get it a grip. It's a leftist rag pushing an anti-West, social-Marxist agenda. I expect better from you. This is HF levels of article sharing.

 

What's next? An Intercept article from Glen Greenwald about the grandness of El Presidente Castro?

 

Hang on though, I only included it because it seems to explain an element of right wing terrorism, and I thought it might broaden the debate away from just Islam - not because I necessarily believe that people are being radicalised. I loathe those aspects (that you cite) of the Guardian as much as the next person and am on record stating this all over the US election thread. That doesn't mean they don't sometimes raise some interesting points though, and it is important to engage with these in order to develop a fuller understanding of our own worldviews, surely?

 

But fair enough if you don't think they're being radicalised. Breivik clearly was (self radicalised I would wager) but he does in effect pre-date the more conventional Alt-Right. He was a full blown political terrorist whose views are entirely in line with the current Alt-Right though. He wasn't declared insane and had a manifesto explaining his motives (which I have attempted to read but it's about 150 pages long and not easy bedtime reading).

 

I just found it interesting.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rayvin

[ChezGiven 0]

Few things:

 

1. It's not 'gut instinct' it's the literal primary document of ISIS which I'm citing. Meanwhile, your statistics don't even deal with the issue. 'Lone wolf terror in the west' is not ISIS, you dullard.

 

2. You are making the claim that ISIS are wrong about their own stated beliefs and motivations. You are claiming to be a mind reader. You are making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You show no evidence to refute the claim. I worry you don't even understand the topic of discussion. You're a waste of my time.

 

3. You lost the argument so you call me a bigot. You know what, fuck you, you thick headed, two-bit, spindly cunt. You like making tables with stats and bullshit like an unfortunately stubby-fingered, tone deaf Malmsteen, but fuck me if you can formulate any idea of what your stats actually mean. Go fuck yourself. I'm not a bigot, you cunt. Typical of your kind to throw accusations of bigotry at arguments you can't win with facts.

 

I'm getting sick of this cunt calling me and others a bigot all the time when he makes a fool of himself.

 

Stop being a snowflake. 

[Rayvin 4949]

As a useful additional point, it's possible that people like Breivik are in fact radicalised by stances like those of the Guardian's - which can be very intolerant if you don't fit into the correct gender or racial identity. Breivik's mother was a moderate feminist who prevented him from seeing his father - no doubt he struggled against mainstream liberal views for some considerable amount of time, seeing a number of hypocritical stances and so on. Given that his attack was on progressives and not Muslims, I think that there likely is something in this.

[toonotl 2406]

 

Piss off, Chez.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChezGiven 0]

Thick headed 2 bit spindly cunts vs Nottingham Forest for the next match thread tbh. 

[Happy Face 29]

Few things:

 

1. It's not 'gut instinct' it's the literal primary document of ISIS which I'm citing. Meanwhile, your statistics don't even deal with the issue. 'Lone wolf terror in the west' is not ISIS, you dullard.

 

2. You are making the claim that ISIS are wrong about their own stated beliefs and motivations. You are claiming to be a mind reader. You are making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You show no evidence to refute the claim. I worry you don't even understand the topic of discussion. You're a waste of my time.

 

3. You lost the argument so you call me a bigot. You know what, fuck you, you thick headed, two-bit, spindly cunt. You like making tables with stats and bullshit like an unfortunately stubby-fingered, tone deaf Malmsteen, but fuck me if you can formulate any idea of what your stats actually mean. Go fuck yourself. I'm not a bigot, you cunt. Typical of your kind to throw accusations of bigotry at arguments you can't win with facts.

 

I'm getting sick of this cunt calling me and others a bigot all the time when he makes a fool of himself.

 

So why do you keep reigniting the debate? Just stop mentioning me or my views if it gets you upset that I would have the indecency to respond.

 

ISIS don't have membership cards and moved away from the al-qaeda model of training camps and funding/planning major attacks.  Their approach is to inspire lone wolves.  Even those lone wolves that are claimed by ISIS often have an array of stated motivations which the research quoted looks to quantify.

 

I don't refute what you have shown ISIS propagandists say at all.  I dispute that the majority of people carrying out the attacks are solely (or primarily) motivated by the ISIS mandated justification(s) you've provided.  The evidence I've shared supports that.

[Happy Face 29]

Thick headed 2 bit spindly cunts vs Nottingham Forest for the next match thread tbh. 

 

 

 

@@Ant will have to sanction this.  He's all about protecting the children now.

[Gemmill 34186]

Few things:

 

1. It's not 'gut instinct' it's the literal primary document of ISIS which I'm citing. Meanwhile, your statistics don't even deal with the issue. 'Lone wolf terror in the west' is not ISIS, you dullard.

 

2. You are making the claim that ISIS are wrong about their own stated beliefs and motivations. You are claiming to be a mind reader. You are making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. You show no evidence to refute the claim. I worry you don't even understand the topic of discussion. You're a waste of my time.

 

3. You lost the argument so you call me a bigot. You know what, fuck you, you thick headed, two-bit, spindly cunt. You like making tables with stats and bullshit like an unfortunately stubby-fingered, tone deaf Malmsteen, but fuck me if you can formulate any idea of what your stats actually mean. Go fuck yourself. I'm not a bigot, you cunt. Typical of your kind to throw accusations of bigotry at arguments you can't win with facts.

 

I'm getting sick of this cunt calling me and others a bigot all the time when he makes a fool of himself.

[emoji38] Be honest, have you got Ken round at yours tonight?

[toonotl 2406]

So why do you keep reigniting the debate? Just stop mentioning me or my views if it gets you upset that I would have the indecency to respond.

 

ISIS don't have membership cards and moved away from the al-qaeda model of training camps and funding/planning major attacks. Their approach is to inspire lone wolves. Even those lone wolves that are claimed by ISIS often have an array of stated motivations which the research quoted looks to quantify.

 

I don't refute what you have shown ISIS propagandists say at all. I dispute that the majority of people carrying out the attacks are solely (or primarily) motivated by the ISIS mandated justification(s) you've provided. The evidence I've shared supports that.

I didn't reignite shit. I made fun of you for not understanding how evidence works. Isn't that what we're still doing? Only one of us deliberately, I'll admit, but still.

[toonotl 2406]

Not upset by you're repeated stupidity, by the way. Not even annoyed.

 

What is annoying is your repeated attempts to label those you disagree with bigots. That annoyance is on me though, to be fair. I shouldn't expect you to change. You won't bow to common sense so why bow to common courtesy either, I guess.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toonotl 2406]

[emoji38] Be honest, have you got Ken round at yours tonight?

 

Shut up and shovel down another two topping pizza.

[Happy Face 29]

Not upset by you're repeated stupidity, by the way. Not even annoyed.

 

What is annoying is your repeated attempts to label those you disagree with bigots. That annoyance is on me though, to be fair. I shouldn't expect you to change. You won't bow to common sense so why bow to common courtesy either, I guess.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Common courtesy you cunt!   Will you bow to it?

[Rayvin 4949]

I think HF is radicalising toonotl as we speak.

[Happy Face 29]

Not upset by you're repeated stupidity, by the way. 

 

 

Sorry to be indecent, I make plenty similar typos, but THAT's dreadful timing for one

[ewerk 26190]

[Renton 17628]

HF, once you appreciate Islam is BOTH a religion AND a political movement things should become clear to you. There's simply no need to separate the two motivations as they are the same.

 

As an obviously clever bloke I do find your use of logical fallacies in arguments strange.

[Rayvin 4949]

HF, once you appreciate Islam is BOTH a religion AND a political movement things should become clear to you. There's simply no need to separate the two motivations as they are the same.

 

As an obviously clever bloke I do find your use of logical fallacies in arguments strange.

 

This is true.

 

Which is more problematic is the question though. I'd say political Islam is the thing that gives us terrorism, not that you can have one without the other.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rayvin

[Park Life 70]

At last someone slammed for linking to The Gurardian.

[Happy Face 29]

HF, once you appreciate Islam is BOTH a religion AND a political movement things should become clear to you. There's simply no need to separate the two motivations as they are the same.

 

As an obviously clever bloke I do find your use of logical fallacies in arguments strange.

 

The researchers give you that benefit of the doubt.  ANY lone wolf attack claimed by ISIS or Al-Qaeda is attributed to Islamic fundamentalism rather than political motivations.  Yet still, only a small percentage more of the total are attributed to that than other racial and religious supremacists.

 

In the most recent 3 years from 2012-2014 other religions were responsible for more lone wolf attacks in the west than islamic fundamentalists.  Only in 2010 did they come out on top in an 8 year stretch.

 

 

I imagine there will be another peak in the next report given the events of the last couple of years.  But I think this suggests that Islam is not a supremely evil religion, unique for it's violence.

 

Also found this passage interesting...

 

 

Surveys of law enforcement agencies in the United States

show that jihadists have been replaced by anti-government

groups as the biggest perceived threat. Instead, the antigovernment

group Sovereign Citizens is viewed as the biggest

threat. A series of surveys conducted by researchers affiliated

with START in 2014 showed that 39 per cent of law

enforcement respondents thought that Islamic extremists

were a serious threat. In contrast 52 per cent of respondents

thought that Sovereign Citizens were a serious threat. The

study consisted of surveying 4,500 officers from 2,100

agencies in the United States and was conducted in 2006 and

2014. The study was conducted only with law enforcement

officers that had undertaken training related to terrorism

prevention as most officers had little experience with working

with the intelligence process.

 

[Rayvin 4949]

At last someone slammed for linking to The Gurardian.

 

FFS I thought it was an interesting article

[Renton 17628]

The researchers give you that benefit of the doubt. ANY lone wolf attack claimed by ISIS or Al-Qaeda is attributed to Islamic fundamentalism rather than political motivations. Yet still, only a small percentage more of the total are attributed to that than other racial and religious supremacists.

 

In the most recent 3 years from 2012-2014 other religions were responsible for more lone wolf attacks in the west than islamic fundamentalists. Only in 2010 did they come out on top in an 8 year stretch.

 

 

I imagine there will be another peak in the next report given the events of the last couple of years. But I think this suggests that Islam is not a supremely evil religion, unique for it's violence.

 

Also found this passage interesting...

Am struggling to understand the relevance here. I'm not talking about other brands of terrorism, I'm talking about Islam specifically and alone. Why are you bringing other lone wolf nutters into the equation? Do these others kill themselves for reward in the afterlife?

 

As far as I aware Islam is the only major religion fundamentally tied to a global political movement in the 21st century. There are specific political and cultural issues with it which make it largely incompatible with western secular democracy imo. It's different to all the other causes of terrorism and I don't think it's ever going to stop. AQ were pussies compared to ISIS. And yet with fairly minimal provocation, a group of 19 young men decided it was a good thing to commit an act of unprecedented slaughter on entirely innocent civilians. What do you think was going through Mohammed Atta's head just prior to the steel beams of the north tower? My guess is the promise of celestial virgins and not the injustices of the Kuwait war.

 

Anyway, let's not go round this again, we're never going to agree.

[Dr Gloom 19740]

Radical Islamic terrorism wasn't created by the west. Exacerbated yes, but we didn't create the concept of jihad as a holy war.