|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 20, 2017 20:41:54 GMT
Understanding or explaining why a thing happens isn't the same as justifying it. This is what I said about this attack in the other thread. "So we have another dead man and another families life ruined. For what? And the authorities in this country will make it worse. They will absolutely refuse to adress the cause of the violence in this country. Instead they will moral grandstand and talk shit about diversity and inclusion and all that bollocks, while Islamists plot to kill innocents and others plot to kill innocents in response. " I ain't justifying shit. I'm simply not sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the Islamist attacks on innocent people have nothing to do with Islam and that the retaliation against innocent people isn't because of the Islamist attacks. Nope, you're justifying it just as much as people who try and explain away Islamic terrorist attacks by claiming it has to do with the wars in the Middle East. So do you think that this guy would have driven a van into a group of Muslims and shouted "This is for London!" had we not seen the terror attacks on London?
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 20, 2017 20:45:15 GMT
Nope, you're justifying it just as much as people who try and explain away Islamic terrorist attacks by claiming it has to do with the wars in the Middle East. So do you think that this guy would have driven a van into a group of Muslims and shouted "This is for London!" had we not seen the terror attacks on London? You're still trying to justify it. It's bizarre how you can't see that. There is no valid excuse for the Westminster attack. There is no valid excuse for the Manchester attack. There is no valid excuse for the London Bridge attack. There is no valid excuse for the Finsbury Park attack. NONE of them are justified. You however are trying to defend one of them.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 20, 2017 20:54:31 GMT
So do you think that this guy would have driven a van into a group of Muslims and shouted "This is for London!" had we not seen the terror attacks on London? You're still trying to justify it. It's bizarre how you can't see that. There is no valid excuse for the Westminster attack. There is no valid excuse for the Manchester attack. There is no valid excuse for the London Bridge attack. There is no valid excuse for the Finsbury Park attack. NONE of them are justified. You however are trying to defend one of them. No, I'm not. Unless you are using some new definition of "Justify" that I am not aware of. Nor am I trying to defend one of them. Lets see... 1. to show or prove to be just, right, or reasonable: 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: 3. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit. 4. to space out words or characters in (one or more lines of type), esp. to produce an even margin. Nope, none of them. Okay... 1. to protect (a person, place, etc) from harm or danger; ward off an attack on 2. (tr) to support in the face of criticism, esp by argument or evidence 3. (Law) to represent (a defendant) in court in a civil or criminal action 4. (General Sporting Terms) sport to guard or protect (oneself, one's goal, etc) against attack 5. (Games, other than specified) (tr) to protect (a championship or title) against a challenge Nope, not those either. Do you understand the concept of causation? 1. the act or fact of causing. 2. the relation of cause to effect; causality. 3. anything that produces an effect; cause. OR Understanding? 1. (may take a clause as object) to know and comprehend the nature or meaning of: 2. (may take a clause as object) to realize or grasp (something): 3. (tr; may take a clause as object) to assume, infer, or believe: 4. (tr) to know how to translate or read: 5. (tr; may take a clause as object; often passive) to accept as a condition or proviso: 6. (tr) to be sympathetic to or compatible with: But yeah, lets not try to understand the causes of terrorist attacks...... Oh and you didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 20, 2017 20:57:31 GMT
You're still trying to justify it. It's bizarre how you can't see that. There is no valid excuse for the Westminster attack. There is no valid excuse for the Manchester attack. There is no valid excuse for the London Bridge attack. There is no valid excuse for the Finsbury Park attack. NONE of them are justified. You however are trying to defend one of them. No, I'm not. Unless you are using some new definition of "Justify" that I am not aware of. Nor am I trying to defend one of them. Lets see... 1. to show or prove to be just, right, or reasonable: 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: 3. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit. 4. to space out words or characters in (one or more lines of type), esp. to produce an even margin. Nope, none of them. Okay... 1. to protect (a person, place, etc) from harm or danger; ward off an attack on 2. (tr) to support in the face of criticism, esp by argument or evidence 3. (Law) to represent (a defendant) in court in a civil or criminal action 4. (General Sporting Terms) sport to guard or protect (oneself, one's goal, etc) against attack 5. (Games, other than specified) (tr) to protect (a championship or title) against a challenge Nope, not those either. Do you understand the concept of causation? 1. the act or fact of causing. 2. the relation of cause to effect; causality. 3. anything that produces an effect; cause. OR Understanding? 1. (may take a clause as object) to know and comprehend the nature or meaning of: 2. (may take a clause as object) to realize or grasp (something): 3. (tr; may take a clause as object) to assume, infer, or believe: 4. (tr) to know how to translate or read: 5. (tr; may take a clause as object; often passive) to accept as a condition or proviso: 6. (tr) to be sympathetic to or compatible with: But yeah, lets not try to understand the causes of terrorist attacks...... Oh and you didn't answer my question. You are indeed trying to claim that the attack was reasonable. That much is obvious here. And when have you ever given a shit about the "causes" of terrorism?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 20, 2017 21:50:25 GMT
No, I'm not. Unless you are using some new definition of "Justify" that I am not aware of. Nor am I trying to defend one of them. Lets see... 1. to show or prove to be just, right, or reasonable: 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: 3. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit. 4. to space out words or characters in (one or more lines of type), esp. to produce an even margin. Nope, none of them. Okay... 1. to protect (a person, place, etc) from harm or danger; ward off an attack on 2. (tr) to support in the face of criticism, esp by argument or evidence 3. (Law) to represent (a defendant) in court in a civil or criminal action 4. (General Sporting Terms) sport to guard or protect (oneself, one's goal, etc) against attack 5. (Games, other than specified) (tr) to protect (a championship or title) against a challenge Nope, not those either. Do you understand the concept of causation? 1. the act or fact of causing. 2. the relation of cause to effect; causality. 3. anything that produces an effect; cause. OR Understanding? 1. (may take a clause as object) to know and comprehend the nature or meaning of: 2. (may take a clause as object) to realize or grasp (something): 3. (tr; may take a clause as object) to assume, infer, or believe: 4. (tr) to know how to translate or read: 5. (tr; may take a clause as object; often passive) to accept as a condition or proviso: 6. (tr) to be sympathetic to or compatible with: But yeah, lets not try to understand the causes of terrorist attacks...... Oh and you didn't answer my question. You are indeed trying to claim that the attack was reasonable. That much is obvious here. And when have you ever given a shit about the "causes" of terrorism? Of course I'm not. Before you jumped in I already "So we have another dead man and another families life ruined. For what? " What part of that suggests I think the attack was reasonable or justified? You're simply talking shit because you don't like the implications of the broader issue. The fact is, by the attackers own words, this was a retaliatory revenge attack. Accepting his motivations doesn't mean I approve of them, accept them or consider them reasonable. And when have I given a shit? I said three years ago on the old board that if we didn't get a handle on things like mass migration and political Islam we would see a rise in the far right and that violence against innocent Muslims would be inevitable. There are 61,000,000 non Muslims in this country. Do you think it realistic to expect non of them will be violent racists who will react to what they see as Muslim aggression with violence? I can understand that fact without agreeing with it.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 20, 2017 22:02:31 GMT
Nope, you're justifying it just as much as people who try and explain away Islamic terrorist attacks by claiming it has to do with the wars in the Middle East. So do you think that this guy would have driven a van into a group of Muslims and shouted "This is for London!" had we not seen the terror attacks on London? If you think that these guys need a terror attack for them to do one themself, you can't be watching the news ever. Or are you claiming that the norwegian children had done something to white idiotic rasist nazi men? I asked earlier in the thread if the house was evil, and you didn't get it. Read this: " However, in 2003 the Mosque was raided by the Police and shut down. It was then reclaimed in 2005 by the local Muslim community with the help of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). A new board of trustees was installed and completely transformed the Mosque from a hostile place to a friendly and cohesive environment where all members from the local community and wider society were accepted and welcomed regardless of their faith and background.
" If that idiot is justified to kill those people just because they use a house earlier occupied by extremists, then sweet lord help the people now living in my familys previous castle. My ancestors have done many many bad things, like killing their wives, beating their servants, choped of heads of "savages" etc.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 20, 2017 23:41:00 GMT
So do you think that this guy would have driven a van into a group of Muslims and shouted "This is for London!" had we not seen the terror attacks on London? If you think that these guys need a terror attack for them to do one themself, you can't be watching the news ever. Or are you claiming that the norwegian children had done something to white idiotic rasist nazi men? I asked earlier in the thread if the house was evil, and you didn't get it. Read this: " However, in 2003 the Mosque was raided by the Police and shut down. It was then reclaimed in 2005 by the local Muslim community with the help of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). A new board of trustees was installed and completely transformed the Mosque from a hostile place to a friendly and cohesive environment where all members from the local community and wider society were accepted and welcomed regardless of their faith and background.
" If that idiot is justified to kill those people just because they use a house earlier occupied by extremists, then sweet lord help the people now living in my familys previous castle. My ancestors have done many many bad things, like killing their wives, beating their servants, choped of heads of "savages" etc. What did Andres Breivik claim was the motivation for his terrorist attack? Quote me saying this attack, or indeed any attack was "justified" or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 20, 2017 23:59:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 0:33:34 GMT
Understanding or explaining why a thing happens isn't the same as justifying it. And yet, whenever somebody suggests that, for instance, 9/11 was a response to US actions and policies in the middle east, there tend to be howls of outrage and "Terrorist apologist!" What say you?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 21, 2017 1:08:49 GMT
Understanding or explaining why a thing happens isn't the same as justifying it. And yet, whenever somebody suggests that, for instance, 9/11 was a response to US actions and policies in the middle east, there tend to be howls of outrage and "Terrorist apologist!" What say you? To a degree it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 1:23:49 GMT
And yet, whenever somebody suggests that, for instance, 9/11 was a response to US actions and policies in the middle east, there tend to be howls of outrage and "Terrorist apologist!" What say you? To a degree it was. Then what you're saying here, in general, is that this attack was in degree caused by the earlier muslim attacks, which were caused in degree by our actions in the middle east, which were a response to the actions of the countries there, which were... and so on. If so, I would agree with you. But whilst that causality chain may be good for understanding ultimate motivations, and even may shape policy changes aimed at reducing tensions... none of that changes the fact that on a day to day basis ANY people who choose to go out and slaughter others on the streets are Doing It Wrong. Whichever "side" they're on.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 21, 2017 1:44:05 GMT
Then what you're saying here, in general, is that this attack was in degree caused by the earlier muslim attacks, which were caused in degree by our actions in the middle east, which were a response to the actions of the countries there, which were... and so on. If so, I would agree with you. But whilst that causality chain may be good for understanding ultimate motivations, and even may shape policy changes aimed at reducing tensions... none of that changes the fact that on a day to day basis ANY people who choose to go out and slaughter others on the streets are Doing It Wrong. Whichever "side" they're on. Yes. hmm....not really. Of the recent attackers, three were British, two Pakistani. There is no direct causal link between the UK in the Middle East and Pakistan. Mansoor wasn't of Middle Eastern origin. How many times do I personally need to say the same thing? Finsbury was a senseless attack on an innocent group resulting in the death of a man. I did not say it was acceptable. I did not say it was justified. I have not defended the attacker. I have not defended the attack. The first thing I said about the attack was that a man was pointlessly killed and that more innocents, Muslim and non Muslim were likely to follow. Does anyone else want to join in on the strawman bashing? Because thats three of you now and probably Rabbit as well.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 21, 2017 2:19:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 2:33:25 GMT
hmm....not really. Of the recent attackers, three were British, two Pakistani. There is no direct causal link between the UK in the Middle East and Pakistan. Mansoor wasn't of Middle Eastern origin. So? That doesn't prevent him having strong feelings on the issue, does it? I didn't actually accuse you of doing any of that, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
|
londonbird
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@londonbird
Posts: 250
Likes: 82
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by londonbird on Jun 21, 2017 8:06:02 GMT
While I don't condone any acts of terrorism the fact remains this mosque should never been allowed to reopen. And they can talk about about "makeovers,new management" and all that other happy horseshit,but the fact remains this mosque was(and maybe still is) a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists) It should have been seized by the government and destroyed. I realise you have self deleted so I am possibly answering myself! What many people fail to realise, you included, is that keeping it open the security services and the Intel we have is keeping all the know people in one place. Closing it means they will scatter meaning a serious fundamentalist will slip through the net. They have opened to new management as you glibly state and also have a few 'moles' in there so really I don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 21, 2017 21:34:53 GMT
hmm....not really. Of the recent attackers, three were British, two Pakistani. There is no direct causal link between the UK in the Middle East and Pakistan. Mansoor wasn't of Middle Eastern origin. So? That doesn't prevent him having strong feelings on the issue, does it? I didn't actually accuse you of doing any of that, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Strong feelings? Why? Why would US/UK Military actions in Syria lead a person in Pakistan to blow themselves up to attack Brits? I felt you were suggesting I was choosing a side and not giving a shit because "my side" wasn't the victim this time. If I misinterpreted that I apologise.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jun 21, 2017 21:44:37 GMT
Nope, you're justifying it just as much as people who try and explain away Islamic terrorist attacks by claiming it has to do with the wars in the Middle East. I normally take your side on arguments like this, but do you think this attack would have happened if the events on Westminster Bridge and London Bridge hadn't occurred? I don't. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you justify the attack, while pretending it originated from a vacuum doesn't do anybody any favours, at all.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 21, 2017 21:50:08 GMT
Strong feelings? Why? Why would US/UK Military actions in Syria lead a person in Pakistan to blow themselves up to attack Brits? I think you're being a bit disingenuous, a subset of Muslims see all Muslims as their 'family' regardless of where they live or where their antecedents are. One radicalisation strategy is publicising atrocities committed by western troops, what we call 'collateral damage'. They show Muslim children being burned/bombed and treat it as an attack on ALL Muslims, so a British Pakistani could very well see dead Syrian children as dead Muslim children, no different than if they had been in Pakistan. Do you honestly believe that our wars and proxy wars in other countries exist in a vacuum and have no effect on terrorist activity here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 22:27:33 GMT
Strong feelings? Why? Why would US/UK Military actions in Syria lead a person in Pakistan to blow themselves up to attack Brits? Well as a for instance, plenty of people in the west talk about "a war on islam", either that there should be one or there already is one. He may have been of the opinion that actions in Syria were aimed against muslims, and that striking back was justified. Or maybe it was more personal - maybe he has some distant cousin or friend that was blown up in a drone strike or something. Ah, that's okay, I didn't intend it that way but I can see how you might have thought I did. No harm done. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/s8tffwvq1/cheers.gif)
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 21, 2017 23:22:19 GMT
Strong feelings? Why? Why would US/UK Military actions in Syria lead a person in Pakistan to blow themselves up to attack Brits? I think you're being a bit disingenuous, a subset of Muslims see all Muslims as their 'family' regardless of where they live or where their antecedents are. One radicalisation strategy is publicising atrocities committed by western troops, what we call 'collateral damage'. They show Muslim children being burned/bombed and treat it as an attack on ALL Muslims, so a British Pakistani could very well see dead Syrian children as dead Muslim children, no different than if they had been in Pakistan. Do you honestly believe that our wars and proxy wars in other countries exist in a vacuum and have no effect on terrorist activity here? Yes, I knew the answer to my question. There is an ideology at play. In the UK alone we have seen in one month three Islamist attacks. Across the entire of Europe in a decade and a half we have seen two terrorist attacks by non Muslims against Muslims. IT isn't just seeing dead people that gets a man to travel 3000 miles to try to kill innocent people. There is a structure of recruitment of Muslims to an extremest position. They are not even targeting the military, the police or government, they are simply killing citizens. I already said they have an affect. This is why it is different. I can fully understand Iraqis attacking UK forces. I can also see why they would target the British. I can see why this prick attacked Muslims. But you're probably not going to see a random bloke from the UK travel to Yemen and blow himself up. Nor does this explain why Belgium, Austria, Sweden or Denmark have suffered these attacks. Indeed, why should a British Muslim, raised in a secular democracy, afforded all the rights and privileges of Western Society, who presumably interacts with British people react in this way without some kind of outside radicalisation? And this is the problem that needs addressing.
|
|