London Bridge and Borough terrorist incident

[parklane1]

But its not, you choose to change your POV to meet the subject

Corporate killer, Killer with a gun, whats the difference?

Yes it is, but if you can not see that ( and you obviously cannot/will not) there is no point in debating it with you.

 

[the dza]

But its not, you choose to change your POV to meet the subject

Corporate killer, Killer with a gun, whats the difference?

If you are going all Chomsky on us, then it follows that terrorists who consider themselves to be fighting a war are no different to our armed forces who drop bombs in foreign countries that kill people, because the end result is the same. Should we also call that terrorism? Was London Bridge/Manchester/9-11 just 'shock and awe'? If you are blown up by a bomb, does it matter who dropped it or why? If your child is ripped apart by shrapnel, does the source make you feel any better about it?

 

[Grays_1890]

If you are going all Chomsky on us, then it follows that terrorists who consider themselves to be fighting a war are no different to our armed forces who drop bombs in foreign countries that kill people, because the end result is the same. Should we also call that terrorism? Was London Bridge/Manchester/9-11 just 'shock and awe'? If you are blown up by a bomb, does it matter who dropped it or why? If your child is ripped apart by shrapnel, does the source make you feel any better about it?

Thats a very good question indeed.

The essential difference between terrorism and war is who the targets are. In the case of a war between nations, it is the uniformed men on either side who are the prime targets of opposing forces but in the case of terrorism, the targets are often innocent citizens who have nothing to do with ideologies and these struggles.

 

[braineclipse]

Matey, can you see what my problem is with this train of thought. I know it's easy to band the race card around like a Premier League ref against any other team against the Sky 4, but there is an inherent problem with how things are reported in the media in these cases.

The fudgetards of London Bridge, the piece of brick in Manchester, they carried out these attacks in 'the name of ISIS/Islam/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, they are considered terrorists, Daesh celebrate it because even though they most likely had no involvement, it's a situation they can take credit for. But in yesterdays scenario the standard ignorant view is 'lone wolf', 'mentalist', 'oh he just snapped'.

You can't equate human life like this.

If we assume that there are people who just snap and that whatever actually makes them snap isn't the real issue as they would have snapped at something regardless.

I think that perspective should be examined for all crimes that may be considered terrorist attacks.

However that in itself is not enough to justify that all of the Islamic terrorism were seeing are individuals who snapped in this way.

I don't know enough about this particular attack to comment at this time. I personally wouldn't be surprised if right wing nationalistic ideology is causing terrorism over and beyond people "snapping".

 

[the dza]

Thats a very good question indeed.

The essential difference between terrorism and war is who the targets are. In the case of a war between nations, it is the uniformed men on either side who are the prime targets of opposing forces but in the case of terrorism, the targets are often innocent citizens who have nothing to do with ideologies and these struggles.

Ahh, but as we all know, bombs get dropped in the full knowledge that innocent people WILL die. They are classed as 'collateral damage' which can be translated as 'innocent people we don't give a phuck about.'

 

[Grays_1890]

Just what we need another body language expert . Of cause there is a bloody different view/reactions to it as they are completely different things

I qualified so yeh

I go back to my original point, people on London Bridge, Westminster Bridge were killed with a purpose, intent to kill or cause harm and the norm is to live and let live, hate won't tear us apart, even in this weeks case, the guy is alive, people know who to blame yet the feeling is one of anti anger.

Grenfell is until proven factually an accident that could have been caused by a cigarette and its a movement of hate and anger towards some people who are as much to blame for the accident than Muslims are for Islamic terrorists.

 

[Grays_1890]

Ahh, but as we all know, bombs get dropped in the full knowledge that innocent people WILL die. They are classed as 'collateral damage' which can be translated as 'innocent people we don't give a phuck about.'

Of course we care, I am anti war, I am a believer in history and that some nations are in situations they are with leaders due to where they are in the pockets of time.

 

[the dza]

Of course we care, I am anti war, I am a believer in history and that some nations are in situations they are with leaders due to where they are in the pockets of time.

You can't have it all ways. You asked Parklane what the difference was between being killed by negligence in a fire, or being run over by a van in a terrorist attack. Clearly, the difference is deliberate targetting. You apparently can't see it in that instance, but suddenly, you are able to see the difference in targetting in the scenario of bombs dropped by the west as opposed to terrorism.

Strange eh?

 

[Grays_1890]

You can't have it all ways. You asked Parklane what the difference was between being killed by negligence in a fire, or being run over by a van in a terrorist attack. Clearly, the difference is deliberate targetting. You apparently can't see it in that instance, but suddenly, you are able to see the difference in targetting in the scenario of bombs dropped by the west as opposed to terrorism.

Strange eh?

No I am comparing the difference in anger to both incidents, where if you take out this weeks terrorist attack the general view on Londons terrorist attacks is one of live and let live. Grenfell is one of pure hate and mob attacks.

 

[the dza]

No I am comparing the difference in anger to both incidents, where if you take out this weeks terrorist attack the general view on Londons terrorist attacks is one of live and let live. Grenfell is one of pure hate and mob attacks.

There is anger at the perpetrators in all cases. In the case of the fire, the fault is with the authorities so the anger is directed at them. As for hate and mob anger, please. If my wife and child burned alive, I'd show far less restraint that the surviving residents of Grenfell.

There seems to be a thread to your posts:

Muslim terrorist attacks -- bad terrorists, no mention of mental illness. Can't understand "live and let live" reaction, which is actually directed at Muslims who aren't terrorists, not the perpetrators of the attacks.

White guy terrorist -- lone wolf, mentally ill, probably not even a terrorist, more like a vigilante.

Victims of Grenfell -- how dare people be so angry at the authorities when friends and family have burnt alive due to their failures. It's just unreasonable hate and mob mentality. Can't see why they are angry at the authorities, and not angry at Muslims who aren't terrorists with their "live and let live" mentality.

Bombs by the West and Terrorism -- despite using semantics earlier in not understanding reactions between a fire where authorities are at fault and the treatment of Muslims who aren't terrorists, the same standard isn't applied to Western Bombs ("of course we care" about the innocent people who will knowingly die) and terrorist bombs that end in the same thing.

So what is your real problem?

 

[AuroRaman]

I'm still struggling a little bit with your point. As I pointed out in an earlier post, both the BBC and Sky were calling this a terrorist attack by around 7am at the latest. This seems broadly consistent with the other recent attacks, where the media were hesitant to use the term in the hours immediately following the incidents, particularly Manchester from memory. I'm not familiar with the specific circumstances of the Mail's reporting, so you may have a point in that particular case but for the wider media in general, I'm not picking up the inconsistency.

You take exception to this guy being labelled a 'lone wolf' and a 'mentalist' however my gut feeling, and indeed greatest hope, is that this is precisely what he is.

You're right in that the media now are more considered in labelling atrocities such as the aforementioned an act of terrorism before getting the full facts. Apologies if I'm not getting my point across and making sweeping statements, I'm in full-on Glasto packing stress mode!

It is the wording in articles after these events that I struggle with. I truly don't want to make this into a race/religion discussion and/or create a brown v white machine. I just feel that our Western media is very inconsistent with reporting based on this. Perhaps I'm getting too caught up on the gutter press reporting and should take a step back.

With your last sentence, the reason I take exception is that we are very quick to label non-Muslim atrocities as 'lone wolf' etc, however we make up our minds very quickly that Islam/Muslims are to blame instantly when such an attack occurs. Some idiot on this very thread said we should tag all Muslims if memory serves. Anders Breivik was labelled as someone who had 'terrorist like tendencies'. He killed kids purely on the basis they were Muslim. He was described as a lone wolf. Surely we should be treating the perpetrators of the recent attacks as the same, right? Unfortunately Daesh get to say that these attacks were committed in their name and for the Caliphate. But you only have to read extremist websites and social media propaganda from the nationalist side in this country to see how easily people can get indoctrinated. These people will hold the Koran up and bleat about how Islam treats women/LGBT/children. Yet they are happy to write posts about how we should nuke entire countries, how we should be shooting/hanging people (innocent Muslims I may add) and when these people are face-to-face with the LGBT community, they're not so fond of them.

As Steff would say, all in the spirit of debate bud. There is where I see the inconsistency lies. I say this because as a third generation (I think) immigrant, I am exceptionally proud of being a Londoner and a UK citizen. And with that I would like to make my voice heard because this country allows me to do so.

 

[AuroRaman]

Don't know, but he went a long way to go to that mosque in particular.

As a non-godtard I know of very few mosques, but I'd be able to name and picture that one off the top of my head because of its history.

That's fair enough and I appreciate where you are coming from. I still don't know why it is relevant to make a point of bringing that up instantly in an article (and have to edit it later because they realised what fudgewits they were being, again) when people have died due to an atrocity. Also, did you read that the Imam of the Mosque protected the perpetrator until the police came?

On the Godtard note, I've started reading into Pastafarianism, I think I might be down with it, they're beliefs and manifesto's could actually be right up our street. We shouldn't rule out a religion such as this...

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Grays_1890]

There seems to be a thread to your posts:

Muslim terrorist attacks -- bad terrorists, no mention of mental illness. Can't understand "live and let live" reaction, which is actually directed at Muslims who aren't terrorists, not the perpetrators of the attacks.

On the first part I will pull you up, one man acting alone solely in a one off event, I would say 100% what a nut job. A group acting in the same way that would start to wain, groups acting across Europe then your single Muslim with mental problems argument goes out the window and I would say you have a problem. On the last I agree to an extent, there is still a playing down of anger to the subject as a whole.

White guy terrorist -- lone wolf, mentally ill, probably not even a terrorist, more like a vigilante.

That was my hunch based on what was being put in the media, I said that yesterday and alas the family have come out today and said he was a loner with mental illness, if you go back and read what I said I actually said lets see if I am right, it was more of a prediction on the media.

Victims of Grenfell -- how dare people be so angry at the authorities when friends and family have burnt alive due to their failures. It's just unreasonable hate and mob mentality. Can't see why they are angry at the authorities, and not angry at Muslims who aren't terrorists with their "live and let live" mentality.

Wrong - I think anger and hate and hurt are total reasonable reactions to this tragedy, I just don't agree with the media and celebrity pedling the hate everyone line when there are no facts on the table, the families don't need that now, they need more of the calm that is reserved for the mourning of the aforementioned attacks. They need an arm round them and human kindness, not people turning up saying "why are you not angry they are lying to you". Until the facts are certain the Lily Allen act of raising tensions without fact creates misplaced anger IMHO

Bombs by the West and Terrorism -- despite using semantics earlier in not understanding reactions between a fire where authorities are at fault and the treatment of Muslims who aren't terrorists, the same standard isn't applied to Western Bombs ("of course we care" about the innocent people who will knowingly die) and terrorist bombs that end in the same thing.

So what is your real problem?

I don't have any problem at all, all is in the above

 

[the dza]

@Grays_1890

The guy is a nutjob, absolutely. Vigilante though? Absurd thing to call him.

As for Grenfell, there has been plenty of human kindness, certainly much more so than any mobs or riots. Who gives a phuck about Lily Allen? The media are speculating on blame because it's very obvious that the authorities are at fault for how the building burned, tower blocks are not supposed to be engulfed in flame like that. There have been any number of experts coming out and saying this, nothing to do with Lily Allen, nobody cares what she thinks. For the terror attacks, there would have been the same anger but the people to blame were shot dead. What was left was a calm attitude to people who haven't done anything wrong i.e. normal Muslims.

 

[Grays_1890]

@Grays_1890

The guy is a nutjob, absolutely. Vigilante though? Absurd thing to call him.

As for Grenfell, there has been plenty of human kindness, certainly much more so than any mobs or riots. Who gives a phuck about Lily Allen? The media are speculating on blame because it's very obvious that the authorities are at fault for how the building burned, tower blocks are not supposed to be engulfed in flame like that. There have been any number of experts coming out and saying this, nothing to do with Lily Allen, nobody cares what she thinks. For the terror attacks, there would have been the same anger but the people to blame were shot dead. What was left was a calm attitude to people who haven't done anything wrong i.e. normal Muslims.

Not a nut job at all, just someone that see's the world differently, there are plenty of people that view the world differently than even you and I

The comment was meant as in his own mind he would feel he is a vigilante, wrong wording to use on the hop.

A debate best left I feel but a good debate non the less.

 

[the dza]

Not a nut job at all, just someone that see's the world differently, there are plenty of people that view the world differently than even you and I

The comment was meant as in his own mind he would feel he is a vigilante, wrong wording to use on the hop.

A debate best left I feel but a good debate non the less.

I meant the dude in the van is a nut-job, not you!

 

[Grays_1890]

I meant the dude in the van is a nut-job, not you!

Ahh lets live and let live

Mental world always has been to be fair, nothing new

 

[braineclipse]

Another excellent podcast on this topic from Sam Harris recently. "The end of the world according to ISIS" a conversation with Graeme Wood who has reported on ISIS quite extensively it seems.

Can recommend it to anyone curious about what actually happens to people who get recruited by ISIS. Other topics discussed too. Wondering about getting Wood's book.

 

[awesome dawson]

Another excellent podcast on this topic from Sam Harris recently. "The end of the world according to ISIS" a conversation with Graeme Wood who has reported on ISIS quite extensively it seems.

Can recommend it to anyone curious about what actually happens to people who get recruited by ISIS. Other topics discussed too. Wondering about getting Wood's book.

I've listened to that podcast, some interesting theories in there.

Let's be honest, ISIS are a nothing more than bunch of crazies who place far too much emphasis on a fictional book, the Koran. They're getting annihilated in Syria and Iraq so they've had to retreat and these lone wolf/domestic terrorism attacks are the final card they have to play. Judging by the amateur hour nature of recent attacks they are to be less feared that poor quality building regulations..

 

[braineclipse]

Not really I just think we have a strange view to things.

There is no doubt a push for anger from the press and people in the UK related to the fire at Grenfell, people are being poked with a stick by the media, by those around them and by famous people, Lily Allen going there purposely looking to get people angry, to march all in the name of answers. And the point of view of being angry and fighting against the establishment is being backed in most part.

A group of people killed in the name of Islam and people are told, live and let live, these things happen, terrorism is part of living in a big city.

There is a major difference in attitude on both

You claim to be a serious student of human behavior. You don't see differences in the two situations that would explain the difference in reactions? Really?