Three killed as truck drives into crowd in Swedish capital - media

[hobz]

2 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

And more died of cancer, and even more of heart attacks.

So what? We are talking about murder, not others causes of death.

Sent from my SM-J710F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

But shouldn't we spend our time on the things where we have the biggest potential to save the most lives? 

Alcohol is almost always involved when people drown in sweden. Awareness of that should be higher priority than this attack. Specially when we consider that the terrorists gain from the attention.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, hobz said:

Yes, but boots on the ground need to leave one day? Yes? What happens then,? Isis 2.0, boots on the ground, leavw, isis 3.0. Repeat.

Boots dealt with Hitlers mob and the Germans prospered...

[transam]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wow! You are citing the Iraqi intervention as a success! Yes, Saddam's army was taken out.  And then what followed? Oh yes, Isis.

I think you miss my point..

[hobz]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Boots dealt with Hitlers mob and the Germans prospered...

Hey, if you can prove that it will stop muslim terrorism, then im all for it. But from what i heard it will not work.. And you are not giving strong evidence to the contrary right now.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Boots dealt with Hitlers mob and the Germans prospered...

Wow, major memory fail. This is exactly what the Bush administration said in the wake of the Iraqi invasion. According to them what little resistance there was at the beginning was of no more account than the "werewolf" resistance of unrepentant Nazis after WW2.

[Bundaberg Baxter]

17 minutes ago, hobz said:

You are not an islamophobe! You just dont agree with the quoran. An islamohpobe is someone who dislikes all muslims. 

Either my or your definition of islamophobe is incorrect. Explains why we argue. Simple misunderstanding.

 

 

wrong, a phobia is an irrational tear and Islamapohobia is fear of Islam, not Muslims. Considering the threat is has always posed a fear of Islam is not at all irrational, despite the many 'peaceful' Muslims

[transam]

9 minutes ago, hobz said:

Hey, if you can prove that it will stop muslim terrorism, then im all for it. But from what i heard it will not work.. And you are not giving strong evidence to the contrary right now.

Nothing will stop terrorism all the while the big guys ISIS can seem to roam freely. Even then you will not stop the nut job....A start is destroy the "mother"...Plant the seed to the brain dead...

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Bundaberg Baxter said:

wrong, a phobia is an irrational tear and Islamapohobia is fear of Islam, not Muslims. Considering the threat is has always posed a fear of Islam is not at all irrational, despite the many 'peaceful' Muslims

If you think fear of Islam is rational, then it's also rational to invest all your money in lottery tickets.

[transam]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wow, major memory fail. This is exactly what the Bush administration said in the wake of the Iraqi invasion. According to them what little resistance there was at the beginning was of no more account than the "werewolf" resistance of unrepentant Nazis after WW2.

The USA and Iraq are now fighting together..........Why is that.....?

[sotsira]

11 minutes ago, hobz said:

Yes, it's really sad, really bad, but blaming aside, what can we do?

 

The governments and security agencies around Europe are the only ones that can do anything.

 

The problem is that for the last 10-15yrs they've done very little since Tony Blair's government

policies, which subsequently escalated the problem to the point that we are today with the growth of radical islamic extremists creating a footprint across Europe.

 

The only response to just stifle their growth (because eradicating their growth is probably already 

too late, due to the ineffective response our governments have taken in the past) is for the governments 

and security agencies to make drastic changes to their current laws and actions towards the extremism

growth.

 

Now here's the big problem, political correctness and leftist oppression over rules these drastic measures that are required rendering our governments inability to act.

 

Saying that, if or when the frequency of these terrorists attacks carry on multiplying they won't have 

any other choices but to act, otherwise the people will rise up and do it for them.

 

This could become a civil unrest in the coming years, and even civil war, but in how many years is anyones guess.

Stifling their growth is paramount otherwise future generations will bear the suffering.

 

[vogie]

28 minutes ago, hobz said:

Lol, i dont even know how to respond. Are you serious?

Try it and you'll see, you'll laugh your head off

[transam]

In the UK they wait to see how many folk get killed on a particular stretch of road before they pay out for a Zebra crossing........If you get my drift...

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, hobz said:

Warning, dont read this if you dont like "leftist views".

 

it makes sense to ask why these muslim terrorists commit their acts of terror. It makes sense to blame islam itself. "They are doing it in the name of islam" "they are following the quoran" ok. This is true.

Why do they hate us so much? "They hate our freedom", "we are infidels according to the quoran", ok, true.

 

But do we ever wonder if there's anything that we can do? 

I can think of two things.

1. American foreign policy in the middle east. Do we even know what the us is doing? Can we trust mainstream media to tell us about the conflicts in the region? Can we trust them to tell us who the US is backing? Who are the US allied with? Who are the enemies of the americans allies? Who and where are US bombing there right now? Where are US troops right now in the region? How many innocents are being killed by drones or bombs? Why? Where? Is this mentioned in mainstream media? How much of this is actually the reason for these attacks? Are they so angry at the US that they are attacking the allies of the US?

 

 

2. How are muslims treated in US and europe? Are we discriminating against them? Surely sweden cannot be accused of this??? Sweden?? But is it easy to get a job if you come to an interview wearing a burqa? Is it? Do you get more calls back when your name is svensson as opposed to muhammad? Is this creating anger? 

 

Im not saying that the terrorists are right. I condemn their attacks and hope they get the most severe punishment under law.

But, if we really wanna avoid more like this we gotta look at the parts that we CAN change.. We cant change islam.. We cant close the borders (its not fair to the muslims that are peaceful).. But we can change US middle eastern policy. We can change how we treat muslims (and other minorities).

Will that solve the problem completely. No.

 

 

So what you are saying is despite the fact that Muslims are doing terrible things, we can change and maybe they will stop.

Does it work for battered women and children? That's what you sound like.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

What did the London mayor have to say about this demo and the Sweden attack. ?

 The banners and placards being shown in that video do not appear in pictures and videos of recent protests in London; which were over Trump's travel ban. Thousands march on London after week of global protests against Trump's travel ban

 

Although not posted on YouTube until 16/2/17, the protest in that video happened earlier. I have not been able to find what comments, if any, the London mayor at the time, Boris Johnson, made about it.

 

The current London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has commented on this brutal Stockholm attack: Sadiq Khan says 'London stands united with Stockholm' after truck attack at shopping mall leaves four dead

Quote

London mayor Sadiq Khan said the city “stands united with Stockholm” after a hijacked truck ploughed into a shopping centre in the Swedish capital killing four people and injuring 15 more.

Mr Khan said it appeared Sweden had seen “a despicable act of terrorism aimed at harming innocent people and attacking our shared values of democracy, freedom, justice and tolerance." 

He said: “Londoners know how it feels to suffer from senseless and cowardly terrorism.

"And I know we share a steely determination with the people of Stockholm that we will never allow terrorists to succeed.

“We will never be cowed by terrorism and today London stands united with Stockholm.”

 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 The banners and placards being shown in that video do not appear in pictures and videos of recent protests in London; which were over Trump's travel ban. Thousands march on London after week of global protests against Trump's travel ban

 

Although not posted on YouTube until 16/2/17, the protest in that video happened earlier. I have not been able to find what comments, if any, the London mayor at the time, Boris Johnson, made about it.

 

The current London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has commented on this brutal Stockholm attack: Sadiq Khan says 'London stands united with Stockholm' after truck attack at shopping mall leaves four dead

 

What else could any Mayor of London say....

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Flustered said:

If Islamic countries such as Brunei can ban the open practice of Christianity, building of churches or other places of worship while building mosques all over the world, why should not countries be allowed to ban mosques and the open practice of Islam?

 So you are saying that because some countries do not practice the freedoms we in western democracies do, that we should restrict those freedoms as well?

 

Were we to do that, we would be as bad as the countries you criticise!

 

The terrorists want to destroy the freedoms we have; the freedoms built up over generations; the freedoms my father and many others spent 6 years of their lives fighting to defend.

 

Why do you share that aim with them?

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

............The current London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has commented on this brutal Stockholm attack: Sadiq Khan says 'London stands united with Stockholm' after truck attack at shopping mall leaves four dead

What else could any Mayor of London say....

 

If he had said nothing some people would have loudly proclaimed that his silence meant he condoned the attack, or at least the motives behind it.

 

When he does speak, you make comments like the above.

 

The old "When Muslims condemn terrorism they are lying in order to deceive us all" ballocks so beloved of some people.

[Usernames]

On 4/8/2017 at 5:25 PM, balo said:

Been some busy few weeks , first London , then Russia explosion, now Stockholm.  Who's next ?  Will we get used to this ? 

Who's next?  Egyptian Christians, apparently.

[Flustered]

5 hours ago, Bundaberg Baxter said:

wrong, a phobia is an irrational tear and Islamapohobia is fear of Islam, not Muslims. Considering the threat is has always posed a fear of Islam is not at all irrational, despite the many 'peaceful' Muslims

To quote you...Wrong, a phobia is an extreme or irrational or an aversion to something. You  do not have to have an irrational fear of Islam, an aversion will foot the bill.

 

Next time, look up the dictionary definition before trying to spin your post.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Flustered said:

 

If Islamic countries such as Brunei can ban the open practice of Christianity, building of churches or other places of worship while building mosques all over the world, why should not countries be allowed to ban mosques and the open practice of Islam?

 

Myanmar is looking a good bet nowadays for retirement once the visa issues are resolved.

 

7 hours ago, hobz said:

The problem is that banning islam would not have the desired effect. It would just radicalize more muslims. Literally the worst idea if you want to prevent these types of attacks. If you want to go down this path, then you must eradicate islam completely, massive bloodbath, massive amount of innocent muslims killed. I bet they did this to christians in some places. Not saying it's fair. Just being pragmatic.

 

I bet if you tried banning christianity in texas you would see something similar lol. Imagine the texas christians goikg crazy with pickuptrucks and ar-15s?? U TRY TO STOP MUH CHURCH? *RAT-T-T-TAT* YIIIHAA

 

Deflection A1: Banning Islam would make Muslims angry, hence counterproductive.

 

But apparently, other forms of worship being banned in certain Muslim countries do not result in Christians, Buddhists or Jews getting "radicalized", nor are there any other adverse consequences.

 

Deflection A2: Banning Islam from Western countries would necessitate complete eradication of Islam. 

 

Because....? Certain Muslim countries are banning worship of other religions. This, by itself, did not lead to a global Jihad against Christians, Buddhists or Jews.

 

Deflection A3: Banning Christianity in Texas would lead to mayhem.

 

Could be. But the point made was more related to banning Muslim places of worship in Western countries. Texans working in Saudi Arabia are not going on a rampage.

 

 

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 So you are saying that because some countries do not practice the freedoms we in western democracies do, that we should restrict those freedoms as well?

 

Were we to do that, we would be as bad as the countries you criticise!

 

The terrorists want to destroy the freedoms we have; the freedoms built up over generations; the freedoms my father and many others spent 6 years of their lives fighting to defend.

 

Why do you share that aim with them?

 

Deflection B1: If they do it, it doesn't mean we ought to.

 

Presumably, this is because "we" are better. But hey - let's call other posters bigots. The collective "we" is supposed to show higher level of understanding  and accommodation, which are not demanded of other countries...because?
 

Deflection B2: Terrorists want to destroy our freedom.

 

That may or may not be true. What's sure is that terrorists want to kill people, and instill fear.

 

Deflection B3: If you do not agree with me, you're supporting terrorists.

 

Well done. For a minute there I actually thought that all that talk about freedom (like the freedom of having a differing view) was genuine.

 

 

 

And in the interest of addressing some expected responses - I do not advocate the wholesale banning of Islam or Muslims, from Western countries.

[just.a.thought]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

So it's a geography lesson you need or do you just have an alternative understanding of what "Western Europe" is?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[hobz]

10 hours ago, Bundaberg Baxter said:

wrong, a phobia is an irrational tear and Islamapohobia is fear of Islam, not Muslims. Considering the threat is has always posed a fear of Islam is not at all irrational, despite the many 'peaceful' Muslims

Ok, so my definition of islamophobia is wrong. I admit it.

 

Is there a word for someone that hates all muslims or most muslims? You know, like if someone hates black people we call them a racist. 

[hobz]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

Deflection A1: Banning Islam would make Muslims angry, hence counterproductive.

 

But apparently, other forms of worship being banned in certain Muslim countries do not result in Christians, Buddhists or Jews getting "radicalized", nor are there any other adverse consequences.

 

Deflection A2: Banning Islam from Western countries would necessitate complete eradication of Islam. 

 

Because....? Certain Muslim countries are banning worship of other religions. This, by itself, did not lead to a global Jihad against Christians, Buddhists or Jews.

 

Deflection A3: Banning Christianity in Texas would lead to mayhem.

 

Could be. But the point made was more related to banning Muslim places of worship in Western countries. Texans working in Saudi Arabia are not going on a rampage.

 

 

 

Deflection B1: If they do it, it doesn't mean we ought to.

 

Presumably, this is because "we" are better. But hey - let's call other posters bigots. The collective "we" is supposed to show higher level of understanding  and accommodation, which are not demanded of other countries...because?
 

Deflection B2: Terrorists want to destroy our freedom.

 

That may or may not be true. What's sure is that terrorists want to kill people, and instill fear.

 

Deflection B3: If you do not agree with me, you're supporting terrorists.

 

Well done. For a minute there I actually thought that all that talk about freedom (like the freedom of having a differing view) was genuine.

 

 

 

And in the interest of addressing some expected responses - I do not advocate the wholesale banning of Islam or Muslims, from Western countries.

Deflection A1, i have no idea about other instances where religions have been banned, but does it really matter? If banning christianity in brunei was peaceful, it doesnt prove that banning islam in europe would be peaceful.. Soo,, it doesnt matter in terms of stopping these attacks, in fact it would just increase them, and we dont want that right? 

 

As for deflection A2, i meant that if you want to prevent these types of attacks by banning islam you would need to eradicate islam to be sucessful. Im not saying that you cant ban islam without eradication. But if you try to do it without eradication it will just increase the attacks. So to repeat again, if you wanna stop the attacks by using a ban you would need to eradicate islam completely, which is probably not possible or good in the short term. in the long term i think we should aim to eradicate all religions, but that's a different story.

Edited April 9, 2017 by hobz

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, just.a.thought said:

So it's a geography lesson you need or do you just have an alternative understanding of what "Western Europe" is?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Yes. You're right. Apparently not even Sweden is considered to be part Western Europe. So let me amend that to the European Union. Better now? 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

17 hours ago, Flustered said:

If Islamic countries such as Brunei can ban the open practice of Christianity, building of churches or other places of worship while building mosques all over the world, why should not countries be allowed to ban mosques and the open practice of Islam?

So you are saying that because some countries do not practice the freedoms we in western democracies do, that we should restrict those freedoms as well?

 

Were we to do that, we would be as bad as the countries you criticise!

 

The terrorists want to destroy the freedoms we have; the freedoms built up over generations; the freedoms my father and many others spent 6 years of their lives fighting to defend.

 

Why do you share that aim with them?

Deflection B1: If they do it, it doesn't mean we ought to.

 

Presumably, this is because "we" are better. But hey - let's call other posters bigots. The collective "we" is supposed to show higher level of understanding  and accommodation, which are not demanded of other countries...because?
 

Deflection B2: Terrorists want to destroy our freedom.

 

That may or may not be true. What's sure is that terrorists want to kill people, and instill fear.

 

Deflection B3: If you do not agree with me, you're supporting terrorists.

 

Well done. For a minute there I actually thought that all that talk about freedom (like the freedom of having a differing view) was genuine.

 Morch, I'm not going to use the word 'Deflection' in my response instead of 'Response' or 'Argument' in an attempt to belittle your arguments.

 

B1 Yes, just because other countries have repressive regimes is no reason for we to do the same. Surely you cannot disagree with that?

 

By 'we' I mean we who live in countries where we enjoy, among other freedoms, the freedom of thought, speech and religion. I thought my use of the phrase "we in western democracies" made that clear.

 

People in other countries do not enjoy the same freedoms as we do; that is a fact which cannot be denied. In my view, yes, that does make us better than those countries, or rather the rulers of those countries; whether that country be Brunei, North Korea or any other with repressive regimes.

 

We can demand that those rulers of those countries do institute those same freedoms we enjoy, and many people do just that. But restricting our freedoms wont make those countries less repressive.

 

BTW, where in my post did I use the word 'bigot?'

 

B2 Maybe bad wording on my part.

 

Yes, terrorists do want to kill, and maim, people and do want to instill fear. Always have, always will; whether they be the Stern Gang, IRA, UDA, Al Qaeda, ISIS, whoever. That's why they are called terrorists!

 

But that is their method, not their aim.

 

What is the aim of Islamist terrorists such as ISIS? Well, most commentators agree that they want an Islamic state run under their interpretation of strict Sharia law. Do they want it just in the Middle East, or worldwide? I don't know; do you?

 

B3 I did not say that Flustered, nor anyone else here, supported the terrorists. Although I have said on several occasions that spreading hate towards innocent Muslims only aids the terrorists.

 

But Flustered wants to restrict religious freedom, at least, in non Muslim countries by banning mosques. Something you, yourself, say you do not support.

 

That is the aim he shares with the Islamic terrorists; restrict religious freedom.

 

I do respect those with a different view; one of the freedoms I mentioned above is freedom of speech. But that freedom means I have as much right to question someone's views and opinions as they have to state them in the first place.

 

Even when, as has happened on TVF on more than one occasion, I am labelled by some as an apologist for, justifier of and even supporter of Islamic terrorists.

 

Addendum: I have added my quote of Flustered's post to make it clear what we are talking about. I also didn't quote the part of your post addressing another poster for reasons of clarity. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by 7by7
Addendum

[14Stevie]

On ‎09‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 10:42 AM, ilostmypassword said:

"Once again, why is it that sentiments of people whose families have been murdered are taken as being some kind of guiding principle or of paramount importance? Policy should be implemented on the basis of rage, grief and the desire for vengeance? That's a good justification for lynch mobs but it's no way to run a country or do law enforcement.

It's people like you, who mark these murders as a special and paramount class of crime who are actually giving oxygen to these terrorists. If these attacks were just regarded as crimes and got little no more publicity than other murders,these murderers would have a lot less incentive to commit them.

As for statistics being irrelevant to you, who cares?  To serious people who fight crime, statistics are hugely important in creating and implementing strategy and tactics. Let's be grateful that you are not numbered among those people. 

On the one hand you state that "I never at any point stated, or implied, the words "serious threat"." On the other you state that "The only figure that matters is 0 deaths and injuries that anyone of any persuasion should suffer at the hands of islamist extremists." If this is your attitude about threats that aren't serious, how much more extreme can your attitude be about threats that are?

 

 

Yet another "once again" introduction - your condescending responses to people are really very boring now.

Once again you are inventing words and statements into my posts by asking and arrogantly answering your own questions.

Only the most heartless of people would ignore the sentiments of people whose families have been murdered by these islamist extremists (step forward your good self!) and no one mentioned policy implementation and lynch mobs but - somewhat hysterically - you!!

As for law enforcement - the UK has worked very hard to put the thoughts and welfare of victims and witnesses at the forefront of any crime so you are really showing your ignorance there!

I at no point stated that these barbarians were special (anything but!) but unless you are wanting to restrict freedom of speech I can contribute to an open forum such as this - you do know what a forum is, right?  - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

As for the opinions of myself or anyone else giving these creatures incentive to commit murders what sheer, utter poppycock!! These people commit the most heinous of crimes following their own warped version off islam. Nothing else.

Whilst your questionable statistics are irrelevant I made no mention of any other statistics, particularly those that fight crime. And as for not being numbered among those people - wrong again Buster!!

Pretty poor response to try and reintroduce your erroneous assertion that I claim there is a serious threat, by the way!

Indeed, in your response to my belief that zero is the only acceptable figure for deaths and injuries that anyone of any persuasion should suffer at the hands of islamist extremists you yourself state:

"If this is your attitude about threats that aren't serious, how much more extreme can your attitude be about threats that are?"

If ever I have read an apologist statement on behalf of these cowardly islamist extremists then this is by far  the best.

Step forward and take a bow!!

Edited April 10, 2017 by 14Stevie

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, 14Stevie said:

Yet another "once again" introduction - your condescending responses to people are really very boring now.

Once again you are inventing words and statements into my posts by asking and arrogantly answering your own questions.

Only the most heartless of people would ignore the sentiments of people whose families have been murdered by these islamist extremists (step forward your good self!) and no one mentioned policy implementation and lynch mobs but - somewhat hysterically - you!!

As for law enforcement - the UK has worked very hard to put the thoughts and welfare of victims and witnesses at the forefront of any crime so you are really showing your ignorance there!

I at no point stated that these barbarians were special (anything but!) but unless you are wanting to restrict freedom of speech I can contribute to an open forum such as this - you do know what a forum is, right?  - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

As for the opinions of myself or anyone else giving these creatures incentive to commit murders what sheer, utter poppycock!! These people commit the most heinous of crimes following their own warped version off islam. Nothing else.

Whilst your questionable statistics are irrelevant I made no mention of any other statistics, particularly those that fight crime. And as for not being numbered among those people - wrong again Buster!!

Pretty poor response to try and reintroduce your erroneous assertion that I claim there is a serious threat, by the way!

Indeed, in your response to my belief that zero is the only acceptable figure for deaths and injuries that anyone of any persuasion should suffer at the hands of islamist extremists you yourself state:

"If this is your attitude about threats that aren't serious, how much more extreme can your attitude be about threats that are?"

If ever I have read an apologist statement on behalf of these cowardly islamist extremists then this is by far  the best.

Step forward and take a bow!!

Only the most foolish of strategists would be governed in his or her actions by the feelings of aggrieved persons. And yes, UK law does allow injured parties to testify at a sentencing.  What has that got to do with devising strategy and tactics? Nothing. Maybe you also think the relatives of murder victims should be tagging along with detectives?

 

So, according to you these terrorists aren’t doing what they do to terrify populations but only for some other motives?  And all the publicity and attention they get, even though it does promote fear among the populace, are irrelevant to their motivations?  Really? So even though they are terrorists, their goal isn’t to promote terror among the populace? Maybe they’re Zen terrorists?

 

It isn’t enough to characterize the statistics I’ve cited as questionable. To support your case, it’s a generally accepted practice to provide something called evidence.

 

As for your apparent contention that you are involved with combating crime, well I was going to doubt you but once I saw that you had writteen “Buster”, how could I do anything but accept your contention?

 

Well, you were the person who claimed that I mischaracterized you as contending that Islamic terrorism is a serious threat. Therefore, what am I to conclude but that you don’t consider it a serious threat? And if you don’t consider it a serious threat, how is it not legitimate to question how much more extreme your response can be in the case of a threat you do consider serious?  Or is this a case like that of Schrodinger’s cat? If so, please.open the box and we can all be enlightened.

 

Do you understand that calling me an apologist for terrorists means that somewhere in my writing I’ve defended their actions? I’m sure you wouldn't write such a thing without having evidence. Please share it with me.

Edited April 10, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[14Stevie]

53 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Only the most foolish of strategists would be governed in his or her actions by the feelings of aggrieved persons. And yes, UK law does allow injured parties to testify at a sentencing.  What has that got to do with devising strategy and tactics? Nothing. Maybe you also think the relatives of murder victims should be tagging along with detectives?

 

So, according to you these terrorists aren’t doing what they do to terrify populations but only for some other motives?  And all the publicity and attention they get, even though it does promote fear among the populace, are irrelevant to their motivations?  Really? So even though they are terrorists, their goal isn’t to promote terror among the populace? Maybe they’re Zen terrorists?

 

It isn’t enough to characterize the statistics I’ve cited as questionable. To support your case, it’s a generally accepted practice to provide something called evidence.

 

As for your apparent contention that you are involved with combating crime, well I was going to doubt you but once I saw that you had writteen “Buster”, how could I do anything but accept your contention?

 

Well, you were the person who claimed that I mischaracterized you as contending that Islamic terrorism is a serious threat. Therefore, what am I to conclude but that you don’t consider it a serious threat? And if you don’t consider it a serious threat, how is it not legitimate to question how much more extreme your response can be in the case of a threat you do consider serious?  Or is this a case like that of Schrodinger’s cat? If so, please.open the box and we can all be enlightened.

 

Do you understand that calling me an apologist for terrorists means that somewhere in my writing I’ve defended their actions? I’m sure you wouldn't write such a thing without having evidence. Please share it with me.

There you go again - asking your own questions and superciliously answering them on my behalf. 

Playing semantics regarding cause and effect just doesn't cut it with me.

In responding to your previous assertion that "It's people like you, who mark these murders as a special and paramount class of crime who are actually giving oxygen to these terrorists" I responded that having never labelled them as special (another invention of yours) the islamist extremists cause these atrocities through a warped version of islam - as I am led to believe islam is a religion of peace. It is a natural consequence that the effect of these atrocities will promote fear.

You're hell bent on labouring the point of statistics and serious threat.

Statistics: The ones you quoted were totally irrelevant to the points made in my original response to another poster regarding reporting of terrorist atrocities and confirmation bias.

Serious threat: I have never stated or implied serious threat - you again invented this via your arrogant attempt to elicit some sinister motive from me. Boring. I have said all I have to say on that matter.

You are quick to quote statistics to defend the non violent islamists and any perceived threat but your silence in the lack of condemnation of these terrorist atrocities speaks volumes.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, 14Stevie said:

There you go again - asking your own questions and superciliously answering them on my behalf. 

Playing semantics regarding cause and effect just doesn't cut it with me.

In responding to your previous assertion that "It's people like you, who mark these murders as a special and paramount class of crime who are actually giving oxygen to these terrorists" I responded that having never labelled them as special (another invention of yours) the islamist extremists cause these atrocities through a warped version of islam - as I am led to believe islam is a religion of peace. It is a natural consequence that the effect of these atrocities will promote fear.

You're hell bent on labouring the point of statistics and serious threat.

Statistics: The ones you quoted were totally irrelevant to the points made in my original response to another poster regarding reporting of terrorist atrocities and confirmation bias.

Serious threat: I have never stated or implied serious threat - you again invented this via your arrogant attempt to elicit some sinister motive from me. Boring. I have said all I have to say on that matter.

You are quick to quote statistics to defend the non violent islamists and any perceived threat but your silence in the lack of condemnation of these terrorist atrocities speaks volumes.

I should have known better than to try and use reason with someone who wrote this:

I at no point stated that these barbarians were special (anything but!) but unless you are wanting to restrict freedom of speech I can contribute to an open forum such as this - you do know what a forum is, right?  - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.