Gas Attack In Syria..genocide

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer, unless he or she is a serial killer. This definitely provokes a comparable outcry from the public.

 

The best comparables are the mass shootings in the states. If you tot up the annual death toll and compare it to deaths from terrorism you end up in the position where banning guns would do more to protect the man in the street than banning Muslims.

 

We all agree that law abiding gun owners should not be made to suffer for the actions of the few bad apples but the same principle is not extended to Muslims.

 

I would welcome a cogent explanation of that last.

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer, unless he or she is a serial killer. This definitely provokes a comparable outcry from the public.

The best comparables are the mass shootings in the states. If you tot up the annual death toll and compare it to deaths from terrorism you end up in the position where banning guns would do more to protect the man in the street than banning Muslims.

 

We all agree that law abiding gun owners should not be made to suffer for the actions of the few bad apples but the same principle is not extended to Muslims.

 

I would welcome a cogent explanation of that last.

But the problem is the vast majority of the public are suspicious of law abiding Muslims, I'll have to look at the stats but don't a large number of Muslims condone these cowardly acts? Edited April 12, 2017 by DogMan85

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

 

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer, unless he or she is a serial killer. This definitely provokes a comparable outcry from the public.

The best comparables are the mass shootings in the states. If you tot up the annual death toll and compare it to deaths from terrorism you end up in the position where banning guns would do more to protect the man in the street than banning Muslims.

 

We all agree that law abiding gun owners should not be made to suffer for the actions of the few bad apples but the same principle is not extended to Muslims.

 

I would welcome a cogent explanation of that last.

But the problem is the vast majority of the public are suspicious of law abiding Muslims, I'll have to look at the stats but don't a large percentage of Muslims condone these cowardly acts?

 

 

Leaving aside the stats for a moment, bearing in mind the elasticity of their use, purely from first principles they cannot do.

 

Muslims are not some other type of humanity, some physiologically and psychologically other species, at least in my opinion.

 

If that is accepted you have to then look at the real reasons for terrorism, which I think we briefly covered before.

 

These are things like the Iraq war, to be very brief.

 

Now there will be sympathy for the people living in these areas and sympathy for the idea of Iraqi nationals fighting what they see as foreign invaders in their own country.

 

However the name for ISIS in the Islamic world is DAESH, that alone should be a fairly big clue as to how they feel about headchopping, bus bombing, baby murdering loons; they deliberately de-legitimise their connection to Islam in the first place and statehood in the second to draw very clear lines that they don't accept them.

 

So when you see a poll and it asks a general question rather than the very specific, for example, "do you support ISIS" there is perhaps more politics than statistics at play.

 

Did you happen to catch this: http://www.teenvogue.com/story/teen-makes-spreadsheet-muslim-groups-leaders-denouncing-terrorism

 

Didn't make the news for some reason.

[jacknife 2,005]

Terrorism is at the forefront as its carried out 99% of the time by muslims

 

And in my opinion the majority of people dislike and distrust them

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

Terrorism is at the forefront as its carried out 99% of the time by muslims

 

And in my opinion the majority of people dislike and distrust them

You are talking about 1.6 billion people, do you think it's possible to generalise about all of them?

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

 

 

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer, unless he or she is a serial killer. This definitely provokes a comparable outcry from the public.

The best comparables are the mass shootings in the states. If you tot up the annual death toll and compare it to deaths from terrorism you end up in the position where banning guns would do more to protect the man in the street than banning Muslims.

 

We all agree that law abiding gun owners should not be made to suffer for the actions of the few bad apples but the same principle is not extended to Muslims.

 

I would welcome a cogent explanation of that last.

But the problem is the vast majority of the public are suspicious of law abiding Muslims, I'll have to look at the stats but don't a large percentage of Muslims condone these cowardly acts?

Leaving aside the stats for a moment, bearing in mind the elasticity of their use, purely from first principles they cannot do.

 

Muslims are not some other type of humanity, some physiologically and psychologically other species, at least in my opinion.

 

If that is accepted you have to then look at the real reasons for terrorism, which I think we briefly covered before.

 

These are things like the Iraq war, to be very brief.

 

Now there will be sympathy for the people living in these areas and sympathy for the idea of Iraqi nationals fighting what they see as foreign invaders in their own country.

 

However the name for ISIS in the Islamic world is DAESH, that alone should be a fairly big clue as to how they feel about headchopping, bus bombing, baby murdering loons; they deliberately de-legitimise their connection to Islam in the first place and statehood in the second to draw very clear lines that they don't accept them.

 

So when you see a poll and it asks a general question rather than the very specific, for example, "do you support ISIS" there is perhaps more politics than statistics at play.

 

Did you happen to catch this: http://www.teenvogue.com/story/teen-makes-spreadsheet-muslim-groups-leaders-denouncing-terrorism

 

Didn't make the news for some reason.

Like I said before, people like DB like to put forward the point that a lot of these terrorists are homegrown.

 

The actions of our governments are not directly affecting these scumbags are they? They have no reasoning at all to commit these disgusting acts against the general public.

 

They are wrong un's plain and simple, in fact 1 in 6 are converts. We are way to soft on these parasites and that's a fact.

Edited April 12, 2017 by DogMan85

[jacknife 2,005]

 

 

Terrorism is at the forefront as its carried out 99% of the time by muslims

 

And in my opinion the majority of people dislike and distrust them

You are talking about 1.6 billion people, do you think it's possible to generalise about all of them?

Yes....its not just about terrorism

[AXUM 255]

Terrorism is at the forefront as its carried out 99% of the time by muslims

And in my opinion the majority of people dislike and distrust them

Majority of people who are far right conservative.

 

But left wing liberal , they will be the first to be converted to islam

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

Like I said before, people like DB like to put forward the point that a lot of these terrorists are homegrown.

 

The actions of our governments are not directly affecting these scumbags are they? They have no reasoning at all to commit these disgusting acts against the general public.

 

They are indeed, almost exclusively and this is the most worrying aspect of the AQ/ISIS ideology for me; at the risk of sounding heartless if this shit was confined to places thousands of miles away who among us would care?

 

Therefore if you were ISIS/AQ you would make it a primary point of your efforts to do exactly the above, i.e. radicalise disaffected and in all probability suffering from mental health issues or even just plain wrong 'un youths from the countries that you hold responsible for XYZ as it that would be the most effective way to push your "clash of incompatible civilisations" line.

 

So whilst the actions of our governments are not affecting these scumbags, they are their masters.

Edited April 12, 2017 by The Lord Flashheart

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

 

Terrorism is at the forefront as its carried out 99% of the time by muslims

 

And in my opinion the majority of people dislike and distrust them

You are talking about 1.6 billion people, do you think it's possible to generalise about all of them?

Yes....its not just about terrorism

 

Then that is not an entirely rational objection and not one likely to be solved by us discussing it, I suspect.

[walshie 2,804]

Axum that's nonsense. You don't have to be far right to distrust and dislike people who commit cowardly acts and try to subvert the British way of life.

 

The people who keep trying to find reasons and explanations for the actions of cowards are just as bad IMO.

 

The problem we have is maybe there ARE decent ones in among the would-be murderers, but how do we tell the difference? It's far safer to distrust them all and risk hurting their precious feelings, than trust the wrong one and pay the price.

[Nik_B 3,790]

 

p.s Trump confirms "we're not going in to Syria"

 

Nik, at what point do the nationalist/anti-interventionists draw the line on, well, intervention. Is it only okay to deploy force to counter a direct threat to US territory? In genuine humanitarian cases? To protect a direct threat to an ally? To protect international trade routes?

 

Do they really think that the US should remain absolutely inactive and let the rest of the world get on with it up until the point enemy airborne are dropping on US soil? Surely there is a line somewhere between the Bush agenda of overthrowing every uncooperative foreign state and say deploying force to counter the likes of IS or threats to international shipping lanes and trade? Or are they both viewed similarly?

 

Is this anti interventionist feeling driven by the bad experiences of the neo-con/Bush agenda with therefore the simple attitude of 'no intervention at all' being the safest option to avoid it?

 

The reason I pose these questions is that I'm far from convinced that Trump is in any way chasing that same agenda. I think that neither the reason nor justification for that strike was anything to do with regime change or gaining another valuable proxy. Militarily it was a waste of time, he did everything he could to make sure that any real military damage was minimal. The justification we all have heard about and will be supported or opposed with the evidence from the ensuing international investigation. The reasons however imo were simple, it made the statement loud and clear that "this administration is not afraid to get involved anywhere!", a statement which helped with more than one problem.

 

I mentioned the message being addressed to Pyongyang. I've had that at the back of my mind since the electoral campaign. It's one of the things I thought he seemed to be quite sensible on, rejecting the bad tasting agenda of regime change and saying that nuclear states were the greatest threat.

 

 

Trumps nationalist/Alt-Right base are very much against any intervention in the middle east especially Syria, a lot of them admire Putin and they don't have a problem with Assad either, they would be happy to work with both to destroy ISIS. The reaction to the strike of Syria was one of horror probably due to the speed at which it happened, they felt betrayed although I think people are calming down and they believe Trump's statement "We're not going in to Syria" is directed at them.

 

I don't know any of the nationalists that supported that strike, they want Trump to focus on Making America Great AgainTM and domestic policy like immigration and the wall, which is funny because the Alt Right are always portrayed as hateful etc but their the most vocal group against more ME war. They agreed with Trump's statements on NATO being outdated and that other countries need to pull their weight more. It's telling that his big foreign supporters like Farage, Le Pen, Banks all thought he was wrong to attack Syria and I think that is a major nationalist policy everywhere now.

 

In short the Alt Right like to think Trump as 'their guy' (even though they know he isn't really) and that they were instrumental in getting him elected so they are very cautious about being betrayed. If he attacked North Korea then I think people might be more understanding since there is some legitimate reasons to do it especially if the Chinese are on board.

[Nik_B 3,790]

 

 

 

Rightly in my view, it's murder on the streets nothing more.

 

The other view, that terrorists are freedom fighters, is not a view I subscribe to.

 

To mention the elephant in the room, some of what is notionally "anti-terrorism" or "anti-Islam" is simply the underlying aversion to "pakis and nig-nog" as someone put it dressed up as pseudo-concern for their fellow man.

 

This tends to particularly be the case in the example of alt-right types on the internet.

 

 

But that's the thing, it's seen as worse than murder on the streets, far worse. When we read about some poor f****r getting beat to death by a mugger we sigh and then forget about it. When we read about someone getting done in by an Islamic extremist it's international news and we all get absolutely f***ing venomous with outrage. The death toll is the same but the principle of it provokes a far stronger emotion in us. I agree it's right but like I said, objectively in terms of actual death toll imo terrorism isn't that high.

 

Myself, I don't think the alt-right necessarily try to disguise their ethnic nationalism under the counter terror banner, at least not the ones I've seen. They simply use these terrorist acts to further their political ideology. Fair play imo but not an ideology I really agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rightly in my view, it's murder on the streets nothing more.

 

The other view, that terrorists are freedom fighters, is not a view I subscribe to.

 

To mention the elephant in the room, some of what is notionally "anti-terrorism" or "anti-Islam" is simply the underlying aversion to "pakis and nig-nog" as someone put it dressed up as pseudo-concern for their fellow man.

 

This tends to particularly be the case in the example of alt-right types on the internet.

 

 

But that's the thing, it's seen as worse than murder on the streets, far worse. When we read about some poor f****r getting beat to death by a mugger we sigh and then forget about it. When we read about someone getting done in by an Islamic extremist it's international news and we all get absolutely f***ing venomous with outrage. The death toll is the same but the principle of it provokes a far stronger emotion in us. I agree it's right but like I said, objectively in terms of actual death toll imo terrorism isn't that high.

 

Myself, I don't think the alt-right necessarily try to disguise their ethnic nationalism under the counter terror banner, at least not the ones I've seen. They simply use these terrorist acts to further their political ideology. Fair play imo but not an ideology I really agree with.

 

 

I don't know that they have enough else for it qualify as a political ideology, would be my response; look at the irrelevance of the EDL for example.

 

At the end of the day the biggest issue I have with that type is that they don't realise that they are the ideological and cultural homologues of the people they profess to oppose whilst at the same time opposing them for their stated lack of interest in rubbing along with other people.

 

It is also a slightly dirty game when they must realise in their hearts that they are not fighting a religion per se but in fact a religious nationalism which is functionally indistinguishable from the ethnic nationalism they themselves espouse.

 

 

1. the EDL were instrumental in forcing the government to act on the grooming gangs, love them or hate them it was the prospects of 100,000 angry blokes causing trouble that forced action.

2. The Alt Right aren't really a political ideology (yet) they're an identitarian ideology. They can disagree on many political things amongst themselves but identity is the core of the movement. They simply believe societies that are more homogeneous and more stable, the ones I know aren't hateful and can lay out reasonable arguments without name calling or going Combat 18.

3. They don't want to have to fight anyone and they don't believe in invading Muslim countries or meddling in Africa. They do believe that if things continue the way they are going that violence will be inevitable.

[DogMan85 722]

 

 

 

 

p.s Trump confirms "we're not going in to Syria"

Nik, at what point do the nationalist/anti-interventionists draw the line on, well, intervention. Is it only okay to deploy force to counter a direct threat to US territory? In genuine humanitarian cases? To protect a direct threat to an ally? To protect international trade routes?

 

Do they really think that the US should remain absolutely inactive and let the rest of the world get on with it up until the point enemy airborne are dropping on US soil? Surely there is a line somewhere between the Bush agenda of overthrowing every uncooperative foreign state and say deploying force to counter the likes of IS or threats to international shipping lanes and trade? Or are they both viewed similarly?

 

Is this anti interventionist feeling driven by the bad experiences of the neo-con/Bush agenda with therefore the simple attitude of 'no intervention at all' being the safest option to avoid it?

 

The reason I pose these questions is that I'm far from convinced that Trump is in any way chasing that same agenda. I think that neither the reason nor justification for that strike was anything to do with regime change or gaining another valuable proxy. Militarily it was a waste of time, he did everything he could to make sure that any real military damage was minimal. The justification we all have heard about and will be supported or opposed with the evidence from the ensuing international investigation. The reasons however imo were simple, it made the statement loud and clear that "this administration is not afraid to get involved anywhere!", a statement which helped with more than one problem.

 

I mentioned the message being addressed to Pyongyang. I've had that at the back of my mind since the electoral campaign. It's one of the things I thought he seemed to be quite sensible on, rejecting the bad tasting agenda of regime change and saying that nuclear states were the greatest threat.

Trumps nationalist/Alt-Right base are very much against any intervention in the middle east especially Syria, a lot of them admire Putin and they don't have a problem with Assad either, they would be happy to work with both to destroy ISIS. The reaction to the strike of Syria was one of horror probably due to the speed at which it happened, they felt betrayed although I think people are calming down and they believe Trump's statement "We're not going in to Syria" is directed at them.

 

I don't know any of the nationalists that supported that strike, they want Trump to focus on Making America Great AgainTM and domestic policy like immigration and the wall, which is funny because the Alt Right are always portrayed as hateful etc but their the most vocal group against more ME war. They agreed with Trump's statements on NATO being outdated and that other countries need to pull their weight more. It's telling that his big foreign supporters like Farage, Le Pen, Banks all thought he was wrong to attack Syria and I think that is a major nationalist policy everywhere now.

 

In short the Alt Right like to think Trump as 'their guy' (even though they know he isn't really) and that they were instrumental in getting him elected so they are very cautious about being betrayed. If he attacked North Korea then I think people might be more understanding since there is some legitimate reasons to do it especially if the Chinese are on board.

 

But won't access to all that oil help make the US "great" again? Let's be honest here, the countries interests in the Middle East are more than likely financial and nothing else.

[Nik_B 3,790]

Well the US racked up 6 trillion dollars debt for war in the middle east, I doubt they've got that back from oil from Iraq

 

Personally I am also 100% against wars in those places, I said from day one it would result in insurgency and I was right. I'm not a peacenik or anything, I 100% support our armed forces but I would prefer they were used for our defence and kept as strong and sharp as possible and not wasted on wars we cannot win.