Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[dick dasterdly]

24 minutes ago, Grouse said:

But you fail to explain why, within the limits of experimental error, all the terrorist acts are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Why is that the case? And before you go off at a tangent, I can't recall any terrorist acts in Europe committed in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Aetheism. If all Muslims were removed from Europe, do you think terrorism rates would go up or down?

Obviously if all moslems were removed from Western countries (and banned from entering Western countries) terrorism would decrease enormously.

 

But some of us think along the same lines as (what's his name - Rumpole books?) - that hurting the innocent is also a crime.

Edited June 7, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Obviously if all moslems were removed from Western countries (and banned from entering Western countries) terrorism would decrease enormously.

 

But some of us think along the same lines as (what's his name - Rumple books?) - that hurting the innocent is also a crime.

Of course; but my point is made.

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Oh my lord, I knew it would happen one day. Someone has invented a pridemeter!

Be fair, you made an extremely callous comment that was bound to upset everyone that read it and, - make your future comments less worthy of consideration, regardless of merit .

 

Even though I appreciate the point you were making - it was still extremely callous.  In the same way as deaths in foreign countries talked about as 'collateral damage' are extremely callous and only thought of this way by a small minority.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The Islamaphobes on this forum continuously post that the terrorists represent Islam because Muslims do not condemn them, do not protest against them.

 

As part of the debate, myself and others show that, in fact Muslims across the world do condemn the terrorists, do protest against them. A fact usually ignored by the Islamaphobes, unfortunately.

 

Of course, such debate on this forum will have little effect in the real world.

 

As to the effect of this condemnation on potential recruits to the terrorists ranks; who knows? But if it has dissuaded just one, then in my opinion it has had a positive effect.

 

As for this latest denial of a Muslim funeral to terrorists, a positive move which may very well have an increased effect in dissuading potential recruits.

 

Yes, the terrorists do try and persuade those they have targeted for recruitment that their way is the true way, even though the actual leaders of ISIS are motivated more by politics than religion. 

 

Surely you are not suggesting that the Muslim population, especially religious leaders, do nothing to counter these arguments?

 

 

 

Then your argument is for justifying answering one overreaching bogus claim with another.

 

Previously the effect of said condemnation was described as "can have an enormous effect on those being targeted by the terrorists for recruitment". Now it's down to "who knows?" and one potential dissuasion considered a success. Quite a downgrading there.

 

And, this might come as a shock, leaders in general are often motivated by politics, even religious leaders. Even ones which oppose ISIS. It's only a bad thing when we do not agree with their politics.

 

Surely you are not trying that old inane ending question gambit again? You know, the one in which you insinuate something which wasn't claimed, or that was actually countered in previous posts.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not sure if your first two points(?) were directed at me. I didn't say anything about ISIS having anything material to do with the attack. Not sure which tangent your taking with this one. Similarly, I did not mention a zero casualties goal, actually posted a couple of times on this topic to the contrary.

 

I don't give a hoot about the feelings of our resident forum fascists, just pointing out that it was unfortunate. Others may cite the views of the victims' families as support, but doubt anyone of them would appreciate your wording. If the focal point is sticking it to forum rivals, that's another matter.

 

Noted that no "react as little as possible" explanations is forthcoming. Oh well...

No I wasn't addressing those issues as points you've raised. Just a discussion. Are you spoiling for a fight?  As for reacting as little as possible...Angry and fearful reactions are like oxygen to the terrorists. The reason they do this stuff is precisely to generate fear and anger (fight or flight response). It would be very effective to show no more reaction to it than would be shown to any other multiple murder.  And I do believe that those protesting most vehemently on the basis of alleged moral outrage are precisely those parties who voice the most vile sentiments. 

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>As for your imaginary musings on my motivations while posting "Islamic" or "Islamist", let me set you straight - I don't actually think about it all that much, hence the terms would be found interchangeably in my posts. 

 

So if you dont think about it all that much, why did you bring up the issue in the first place responding to a post of mine pages back in the thread?

 

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

QED.

 

I hope you will focus on more accurate terminology and less hateful stereotyping in your future posts.

 

That I don't place to much importance on the distinction does not prevent me from commenting on others making a whole lot of it.

 

Methinks you think too much.

 

As for "hateful stereotyping" (which, by the way, did not appear in my posts), you'd be an expert on the subject.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

Well it was a few years back but i had a good female friend whose mother was a JW. During childbirth my friend would have died without a blood transfusion. The JW mother was never told about the transfusion. That is an unacceptable way to interpret a religion or in itself is an unacceptable religion. i thnk that is the point Trasam is making.

 

In my view all religious beliefs are archaic.

Whilst I agree entirely that all religious beliefs are archaic - my mother went through the same thing giving birth to her last child.

 

She refused blood transfusions, was given alternatives (much the same as your friend's mother I suspect....) and recovered as easily as if given a blood transfusion....

 

Entirely off-topic off course.  This diversion would never have happened if a poster hadn't compared JWs to terrorists!

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No I wasn't addressing those issues as points you've raised. Just a discussion. Are you spoiling for a fight?  As for reacting as little as possible...Angry and fearful reactions are like oxygen to the terrorists. The reason they do this stuff is precisely to generate fear and anger (fight or flight response). It would be very effective to show no more reaction to it than would be shown to any other multiple murder.  And I do believe that those protesting most vehemently on the basis of alleged moral outrage are precisely those parties who voice the most vile sentiments. 

 

Not "spoiling for a fight", just get tiresome when posters can't follow their own argument, and open a couple of side ones on the fly. As I'm counting three other instances of posters attributing views I did not express, didn't appreciate yet another.

 

There is a whole range of options between adopting the suggestions made by the resident fascist element and "reacting as little as possible". Terrorism, both in terms of investigations and counter-action, is not really like addressing ordinary criminal activity. Even if it was, a criminal attack of such magnitude would elicit a strong reaction. 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Morch

[rogeroc]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I agree entirely that all religious beliefs are archaic - my mother went through the same thing giving birth to her last child.

 

She refused blood transfusions, was given alternatives (much the same as your friend's mother I suspect....) and recovered as easily as if given a blood transfusion....

 

Entirely off-topic off course.  This diversion would never have happened if a poster hadn't compared JWs to terrorists!

Fair point and of course i should have said ' My friend was told she would die without a blood transfusion'. Comparison of extreme religious views is not off topic though.

[7by7]

34 minutes ago, transam said:

Correct, just lately you have said that, which was a breath of fresh air, any more questions....?

 Not just lately, I've been saying it for a very long time.

 

I can't be bothered to go back and dig out all the other questions you have ignored, but hope that in future you will be able to answer relevant questions.

Edited June 7, 2017 by 7by7

[7by7]

31 minutes ago, transam said:

If you think I am going to spend my time going through zillions of posts you are daft.....You have called me a racist on other similar threads. You want to report me for telling porkies, great. Go for it...

You don't have to go through zillions of posts. as you would know if you knew how to use the search function!

 

Report you? Why, bother. I am not one to run to the Mods whenever someone insults me.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Prbkk said:

The person shot had attacked police with a hammer.

A semi-communist, then?

 

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Not just lately, I've been saying it for a very long time.

 

I can't be bothered to go back and dig out all the other questions you have ignored, but hope that in future you will be able to answer relevant questions.

List them.....I will answer...

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Not "spoiling for a fight", just get tiresome when posters can't follow their own argument, and open a couple of side ones on the fly.

As I'm counting three other instances of posters attributing views I did not express, didn't appreciate yet another.

 

There is a whole range of options between adopting the suggestions made by the resident fascist element and "reacting as little as possible". Terrorism, both in terms of investigations and counter-action, is not really like addressing ordinary criminal activity. Even if it was, a criminal attack of such magnitude would elicit a strong reaction. 

 

 

Whilst I agree that its more than time to address the problem, I still think its better to keep the brit-born moslems on 'our' side'.

 

Attacking innocent moslems/destroying their mosques etc. is only going to result in more terrorists.

 

We've already heard that moslem people have previously reported future terrorists to authorities (unless you believe they are lying).

 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Basil B said:

I do not think it a good idea to allow Joe public to carry weapons for self defence as it will allow criminals to carry weapons unchallenged.

 

Better thing to do is think what you could do if you found yourself in a similar situation.

 

Official advice: Run, Hide, Tell...

 

I know when one finds oneself in a situation like that the brain does not work to well, but I always consider what I would do in such a situation.

 

Run is probably best action, but I am not a good runner.

Defending myself, lobbing things at them... beer and wine bottle (full), chairs and tables, (near by construction site), bricks, if they are wearing a suicide vest then keep them as far away as possible.  

Fire extinguisher could be a useful weapon, spray in their face, blind them, lash out, swing it at arms length, aim at the the head or knees, throw it at them.

 

To quote Mike Tyson: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

[rogeroc]

45 minutes ago, Grouse said:

But you fail to explain why, within the limits of experimental error, all the terrorist acts are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Why is that the case? And before you go off at a tangent, I can't recall any terrorist acts in Europe committed in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Aetheism. If all Muslims were removed from Europe, do you think terrorism rates would go up or down?

 I suspect that may well not be true but i suppose that depends on exactly what you mean by in the name of religion. Many have accused Bush and Blair of being terrorists and i seem to recall they both proclaimed to being 'Good Christians'  But yes they did not say they were invading Iraq in the name of God ! 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

There is a function on thaivisa called "ignore." Since your feeling are so tender, it might be wise to use it.

It seems he is the one that should press it then, he is the one contacting me, and not me contacting him, a bit tricky for you?

Edited June 7, 2017 by vogie

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I agree that its more than time to address the problem, I still think its better to keep the brit-born moslems on 'our' side'.

 

Attacking innocent moslems/destroying their mosques etc. is only going to result in more terrorists.

 

We've already heard that moslem people have previously reported future terrorists to authorities (unless you believe they are lying).

 

 

Indeed, which is why I don't even bother much with replying to many of the obvious nutters. But on the other hand, not buying into the fairy tale versions spun by others.

 

Muslim communities in the UK are not homogeneous, as Muslims themselves aren't. Labeling them as this or that is more of a ideological or political thing.

 

Pin on culture, religion, Western policy or whatever - bottom line is that there are grave issues pertaining to such communities and they need to be addressed. Hanging on to either extreme view posters favor doesn't seem very promising or realistic.

 

What I believe about community cooperation with police and security forces is that it is in both the community and law enforcement agencies' interest to portray it as better than it is. Other than that, it is just one aspect of relevant intelligence gathering, not the main or sole element.

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Then your argument is for justifying answering one overreaching bogus claim with another.

Sorry to ask you another question, but are you saying that the proven overwhelming condemnation of Islamic terrorists by Muslim political and religious leaders and ordinary members of the Muslim population over the last decades is a bogus claim?

 

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

Previously the effect of said condemnation was described as "can have an enormous effect on those being targeted by the terrorists for recruitment". Now it's down to "who knows?" and one potential dissuasion considered a success. Quite a downgrading there.

I'm sorry, but how is that downgrading?

 

I said that denial of a Muslim funeral can have an enormous effect, not that it definitely will do! I just hope it does.

 

The 'who knows?' comment was about the general condemnation, not the denial of a Muslim burial, which is something new.

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

And, this might come as a shock, leaders in general are often motivated by politics, even religious leaders. Even ones which oppose ISIS. It's only a bad thing when we do not agree with their politics.

Err, that's what I said, so, no, it doesn't come as a shock!

 

I am also well aware of the old saying that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

 

(I now await some idiot's, not you, Morch, obviously, accusation that I consider Islamic terrorists to be freedom fighters!)

 

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

Surely you are not trying that old inane ending question gambit again? You know, the one in which you insinuate something which wasn't claimed, or that was actually countered in previous posts.

When people belittle and even dismiss the efforts of the majority of Muslims, including this latest denial of Muslim burial, in countering the terrorists claiming to act in their name, surely such a question as "Surely you are not suggesting that the Muslim population, especially religious leaders, do nothing to counter these arguments?" is justified?

 

Oops, ended on a question again!

[vogie]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 This is an open forum and all members have the right to read and comment on all posts; as long as they stay within the forum rules.

 

You are, of course, at liberty to ignore my posts and not respond to them.

 

BTW, to the best of my recollection I have never called you 'racial' (by which I assume you mean a racialist). But if I have, perhaps you can provide a link to one of the relevant posts so I can judge whether that epithet was deserved or not.

I do not ignore your posts, I just know it is totally futile exchanging dialogue with someone like you, it always ends up rather tedious to say the least, if my posts bother you that much, block me.

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

It seems he is the one that should press it then, he is the one contacting me, and not me contacting him, a bit tricky for you?

 I am not contacting you, I am posting in the open forum.

 

You asked how a member would react if a member of their family were among the victims; I provided a quote from Mellissa McMullan whose brother was among the victims.

Quote

"While our pain will never diminish it is important for us to all carry on with our lives in direct opposition to those who would try to destroy us.

"And remember that hatred is the refuge of small-minded individuals and will only breed more. This is not a course we will follow despite our loss. (source)

and asked you if you considered that to be apathetic, daring you to say it to her face.

 

You could have chosen to ignore that post or man up and respond to it; but instead you've chosen to throw your toys out of the pram!

 

Edit:

Your posts don't bother me at all. But obviously mine bother you!

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by 7by7

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Sorry to ask you another question, but are you saying that the proven overwhelming condemnation of Islamic terrorists by Muslim political and religious leaders and ordinary members of the Muslim population over the last decades is a bogus claim?

 

I'm sorry, but how is that downgrading?

 

I said that denial of a Muslim funeral can have an enormous effect, not that it definitely will do! I just hope it does.

 

The 'who knows?' comment was about the general condemnation, not the denial of a Muslim burial, which is something new.

Err, that's what I said, so, no, it doesn't come as a shock!

 

I am also well aware of the old saying that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

 

(I now await some idiot's, not you, Morch, obviously, accusation that I consider Islamic terrorists to be freedom fighters!)

 

When people belittle and even dismiss the efforts of the majority of Muslims, including this latest denial of Muslim burial, in countering the terrorists claiming to act in their name, surely such a question as "Surely you are not suggesting that the Muslim population, especially religious leaders, do nothing to counter these arguments?" is justified?

 

Oops, ended on a question again!

 

Twistin' time is here.

 

Answering a bogus claim that the terrorists represent all Muslims, with a bogus claims that they are "unIslamic" or that other Muslims voicing other views represent all Muslims - is bogus. Hope it's clearer now.

 

How switching from talk about "enormous effect" to a single potential dissuasion is seen as downgrading? I think it's self explanatory. If there are many  Muslim religious leaders expressing condemnation, than the latter eventuality could not be considered much of a success.  I'll provide you with a ladder - it would be almost impossible to quantify or even qualify.

 

The point made was that making a whole lot of ISIS leaders supposedly being "politically motivated" is beside the point. Unless one subscribes to a competing school of thought in Islam, in which case it becomes paramount to stress.

 

I am not "people" and I am not responsible for what others post. I did not deny that many Muslims express condemnation and outrage, quite the opposite. What I did highlight, and which you ignored, is that such expressions pale in comparison to other instances which were perceived negatively by Muslims.

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Twistin' time is here.

Indeed it is!

 

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Answering a bogus claim that the terrorists represent all Muslims, with a bogus claims that they are "unIslamic" or that other Muslims voicing other views represent all Muslims - is bogus. Hope it's clearer now.

If the condemnation of the terrorists as unIslamic by Muslims is bogus then surely the claim that the terrorists represent all Muslims must be true! Both claims cannot logically be bogus; either the terrorist are Islamic, or they are not.

 

Personally, I believe the word of the tens of thousands of Muslim religious leaders and Imams who have condemned them as unIslamic; up to you whether you take the opposite view or not.

 

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

How switching from talk about "enormous effect" to a single potential dissuasion is seen as downgrading? I think it's self explanatory. If there are many  Muslim religious leaders expressing condemnation, than the latter eventuality could not be considered much of a success.  I'll provide you with a ladder - it would be almost impossible to quantify or even qualify.

You've lost me here. I said that the denial of Muslim burial can have an enormous effect, not that it definitely will do so. Yet you accuse me of twisting!

 

Yes, I did say "Who knows" with regard to the success of the worldwide condemnation of Islamic terrorism by Muslims in dissuading young Muslims from becoming terrorists. I said that because i don't know how successful it has been. If you do, please tell us.

 

But I also said that if it has dissuaded just one individual, then it's been worthwhile; do you agree or disagree with that?

 

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

The point made was that making a whole lot of ISIS leaders supposedly being "politically motivated" is beside the point. Unless one subscribes to a competing school of thought in Islam, in which case it becomes paramount to stress

ISIS' recruiters obviously concentrate on the religious side and leave out the politics when attempting to indoctrinate those they have targeted as potential members, I said as much. So your point here is lost to me.

 

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

I am not "people" and I am not responsible for what others post. I did not deny that many Muslims express condemnation and outrage, quite the opposite. What I did highlight, and which you ignored, is that such expressions pale in comparison to other instances which were perceived negatively by Muslims.

Again, you've lost me, so I have to ask you a question.

 

What do you mean by "such expressions pale in comparison to other instances which were perceived negatively by Muslims?"

 

What other instances; the outpourings from the likes of Pamela Gellar, Gatestone etc.?

 

Sorry, that's two questions.

 

I'm not trying to trap you, or twist your words; I am genuinely confused by what you have posted and thus seek clarification.

[Grouse]

39 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

 I suspect that may well not be true but i suppose that depends on exactly what you mean by in the name of religion. Many have accused Bush and Blair of being terrorists and i seem to recall they both proclaimed to being 'Good Christians'  But yes they did not say they were invading Iraq in the name of God ! 

GWB invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and Blair should not have allowed himself to be drawn in. However, terrorists? No, I don't buy that. And crusading Christians? Codswallop!

[7by7]

49 minutes ago, transam said:

List them.....I will answer...

Ok, but I asked first. 

 

So I will do so after you have come up with just one post where I have called you a racist.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which guy?  Do you have a link?

 

Not that I disbelieve you as it makes sense to run away in these circumstances.

 

At the end of the day, I suspect it comes down to 'fight or flight' - and few of us know where we would fall in that category.

I posted the link earlier. Millwall fan, took on all three knife slingers bare handed.

[transam]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Ok, but I asked first. 

 

So I will do so after you have come up with just one post where I have called you a racist.

You are now trolling.....You stated I don't answer your questions regarding this thread....Go for it...Go on ask your racist...Afraid....?

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I posted the link earlier. Millwall fan, took on all three knife slingers bare handed.

Impossible to reply to this without appearing extremely stupid, bearing in mind the ongoing discussion above!

[rogeroc]

33 minutes ago, Grouse said:

GWB invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and Blair should not have allowed himself to be drawn in. However, terrorists? No, I don't buy that. And crusading Christians? Codswallop!

 When i made my comment about Bush and Blair Christians i had a limited knowledge of any details and certainly i did not describe them as crusading Christans. However your challenge of my comments led me to do a few Blair / Bush Christians? searches. The results surprised me, it appears that they were both indeed crusading Chrstians and there is strong suggestion that Blair's Christianity was a significant influence in him going to war in Iraq.

 

And now we have Thereas May, apparently another fine Christian.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Indeed it is!

 

If the condemnation of the terrorists as unIslamic by Muslims is bogus then surely the claim that the terrorists represent all Muslims must be true! Both claims cannot logically be bogus; either the terrorist are Islamic, or they are not.

 

Personally, I believe the word of the tens of thousands of Muslim religious leaders and Imams who have condemned them as unIslamic; up to you whether you take the opposite view or not.

 

You've lost me here. I said that the denial of Muslim burial can have an enormous effect, not that it definitely will do so. Yet you accuse me of twisting!

 

Yes, I did say "Who knows" with regard to the success of the worldwide condemnation of Islamic terrorism by Muslims in dissuading young Muslims from becoming terrorists. I said that because i don't know how successful it has been. If you do, please tell us.

 

But I also said that if it has dissuaded just one individual, then it's been worthwhile; do you agree or disagree with that?

 

ISIS' recruiters obviously concentrate on the religious side and leave out the politics when attempting to indoctrinate those they have targeted as potential members, I said as much. So your point here is lost to me.

 

Again, you've lost me, so I have to ask you a question.

 

What do you mean by "such expressions pale in comparison to other instances which were perceived negatively by Muslims?"

 

What other instances; the outpourings from the likes of Pamela Gellar, Gatestone etc.?

 

Sorry, that's two questions.

 

I'm not trying to trap you, or twist your words; I am genuinely confused by what you have posted and thus seek clarification.

 

Err no. There is requirement that either bogus claim would be correct. It isn't a zero sum thing. That is, unless you are a believer and then the whole "Islamic" vs. "unIslamic" means something for you. Most sacrilegious people can accommodate the notion of rival schools of thought within a religion, without the resorting to "excommunicate" anyone. And as pointed out earlier, the whole concept of "representation" is based on a rather flimsy foundation in this case. Making it into a faux either or thing is just nonsense.

 

What you actually posted was:

 

Quote

Such labelling by myself and others on internet forums does nothing.

 

But when such labels come from Muslim leaders, especially Imams and other religious leaders, it can have an enormous effect on those being targeted by the terrorists for recruitment..

 

More than 130 imams refuse to perform Islamic burials for Manchester and London attackers.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/986260-police-rush-to-london-bridge-after-reports-of-van-hitting-pedestrians/?page=65#comment-11962375

 

So you didn't say that the "denial of burial could have an enormous effect", but that the application of labels can. I'm sure that you can dodge and twist that one too. Go for it. As for repeatedly making this too into a faux agree/disagree issue, allow me to point out that there are probably more ways of seeing it. But if pressed, no - if there were indeed many religious leaders calling for one course of action, and only a single person heeded, it couldn't be termed worthwhile.

 

I wouldn't know that you're all that familiar with ISIS recruiting protocols, and the point made was different anyway, Namely, that negatively commenting on ISIS leaders being more politically than religiously oriented is meaningless, both in the sense that it does not matter all that much, and that this observation is not unique - same could be said about many Muslim religious leaders which oppose ISIS.

 

With regard to the last bit - let's try again. It was said that Muslims expressed their outrage over such terrorist attacks, at least partially due to perpetrators claims to carry them out in the name of religion. The observation made was that other instances which were considered by Muslims worldwide to be an affront to Islam, were met with far more salient expressions of outrage. If posters memory needs a jolt, here are some keywords - caricatures, films, books. Interestingly enough, all those non-violent supposed insults to the faith resulted in violent responses, whereas a supposed violent affront to Islam (like terrorist attacks) results in a much milder reaction.

 

It would perhaps be easier for you to follow if you cease mutilating posts into bits, making it harder to reply.