Another attack in France...

lloyd

Christian fundamentalists being less successful at murdering people is totally different to them not existing... Just because they got arrested or killed before they killed more people doesn't make them less of a zealous murderer. 

It's a pretty important stat when we're discussing which group has killed the most and made the most attacks though no?

lloyd

Myranda said:

quarky said:

lloyd said:

Myranda said:

Christian terrorism? Bombing of abortion clinics in the US? 

Catholics Vs Protestants? 

The following were all by Christians in the name of God... Praises by "The Army of God" a group of far right radical Christians 

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. 

The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009

Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008

 The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. 

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996

The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998

 Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.

Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. 

KKK terrorism/murder (the Klan are a religious group...) 

The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984

Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.
(the motivation being partly Ruby Ridge so there's still a religious link) 

Go back a little further than that and there's a reign of terrorism in the form of white supremist groups (using passages of the Bible to justify

The whole point is that just as most of the Christian world is mortified by the attitude of the Army of God nutters so too are the majority of Muslims mortified by the people using their faith to justify murder. And to claim that Christianity has some sort of moral high ground or is bloodless is disingenuous in the extreme. 


Im done deleting the above but in response to the last bit-firstly, I'm not sure what various groups level of mortification at murder has to do with any of the points made in this thread?

second, no one has claimed Christianity to be bloodless, the moral high ground, if there is one, is the fact that these atrocities are done overwhelmingly by Muslims. You've pointed out a small handful of incidents, with lone gunman (in the main) type killings with one or two deaths (yes there are a few with more deaths) while the link I provide has a hundred(?) Incidents with 10,000's of deaths, which is as I keep repeating, the point I'm trying to make.

lloyd

quarky said:

ToneControl said:

quarky said:

Ro_S said:

@quarky said:

- if 10% of muslims are terrorists (I assume that is your insinuation from the 90% you mention), why are the other 90% peaceful (and I have no idea where you get the idea that 10% of all muslims are involved in terrorism)? Do you think that is because those 90% are the ones who don't practice islam correctly and the 10% are the ones who do?

Second, 
@ToneControl did not suggest that 10% of Muslims are terrorists.   He posited that he perhaps 10% of Muslims follow a form of Islam that is not peaceful. 

Well he suggested that only 90% were peaceful. So my insinuation is that the other 10% are not peaceful. If there is some kind of "third way" that is not "peaceful" or "not peaceful", that make up the other 10%, I am all ears waiting for an explanation.

Or in case you want to weasel out and claim that a significant proportion follow a violent form of Islam (although I haven't see many facts present at all on here to back up the claims made), which one?

Because by doing so, we have to ignore, or completely the professed motives and background of most of the people involved in the recent attacks. Actually, we can't ignore it, we need to pretend that there motives were actually different in some cases.

With the IRA  in NI,  no one would say that all Catholics were terrorists. However,  a significant minority fully agreed with most of the IRA actions. A larger number empathised with them, whilst perhaps not endorsing them, and would not have dreamed of informing on them. 

Same with the protestant terrorists. Some strong support, some lukewarm, some fear.  

In the muslim world, there are all sorts of people.  The question is  "how many endorse or are content to tolerate Jihad?"
A simple google search turns up the first hit (I can be a bit sarky too, we can drop that if you like, I don't think it adds to the quality of debate):   http://metrocosm.com/support-isis-muslim-world-perceptions-vs-reality/
so in many muslim countries, support for ISIS is around 10%
It's 21% in Syria, and we are seeing large scale migration from Syria into the EU.

Now, tell me again not to worry, because genocide, slavery and  mass rape are all  nothing to worry about, because social deprivation probably is the real trigger for that behaviour, and we can easily fix that.  I don't see any other societies currently giving support to an organisation committing war crimes on an industrial scale.

So what's the  best course of action then? Improvements in benefits and job prospects in French slums?

 

Ha ha. No, I don't mind your sarky comments. You guys come across as smart reasonable people, so I have no problem at all with it. I hope mine don't come across badly either!

"Support for ISIS" is again difficult I think, because it is like the referendum. Support means many different things to different people depending on what they learn/know. So of that 10%, how many would answer "Yes" to support of a caliphate and how many would support terrorism to get there? A caliphate is a perfectly legitimate aim for many muslims because that is just an area under islam rule, much as the Pope and Emperor ruled Eastern and Western Europe. I am sure many Catholics would want to see a return to papal authority, as they consider him to be gods infallible representative on Earth.

And I never said "don't worry". People should worry, but as we have seen, these recent terrorist acts have been a reaction to events in the ME, and you talk about poverty and social depravation, but actually, those are the solutions to the problem. THe fringe elements of Islam are financed from Saudi Arabia, who we in the West keep supporting, and keep giving money too. We deserve a hell of a lot of "credit" for creating the monster. And now it is like a hydra. OK, terrible comparison but "cutting off it's heads" is not helping, it making the problem worse. Maybe, just maybe, we could actually ask muslims in this country, in France, and in the Middle East what they want to do to resolve the issue, because bombing the fuck out of people clearly isn't working.

We need to accept that the fringe elements represent a miniscule percentage of muslims.





The fact that there are more violent incidents associate with muslims at the moment is not down to the religion, but down to the shit that is happening in the ME at the moment. And by (wrongly) making that tiny minority into the representatives of that faith, you are playing into the hands of the fundamentalist nut-cases.

No one gives two hoots how large a proportion of Islam Isis are, no one is saying they are representative of Islam.

what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities.

the stats and facts do not lie in this regard.

lloyd

@quarky how do these figures go into your narrative?

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah106/joneslloyd1/Mobile Uploads/2016-06/2016-07/64E65C66-5E3E-44A6-BB26-354350C0D15F_zpszvzsaviu.png

Now while the majority do not support ISIS you have 71% of Pakistanis having a positive or neutral opinion of them, 40% of Senegal, 35% of Malaysia etc etc etc, we're talking fairly large chunks of populations here- tens of millions in some cases, with half of these examples having around 10% of te population with a favourable opinion of ISIS-these are not insignificant %'s or numbers IMO.

To swing it back onto the Chritian/Sikh argument-what kind of %'s of populations would be supporting any of the atrocities committed by McVey, the KKK, the abortion clinic bombings etc? 

Ro_S

^ 62% of Pakistanis ''don't know'' what to think about ISIS - wtf?!

Were most of that 62% just being coy and not prepared to come out and say 'Favourable'?

lloyd

Ro_S said:

^ 62% of Pakistanis ''don't know'' what to think about ISIS - wtf?!

Were most of that 62% just being coy and not prepared to come out and say 'Favourable'?

Who knows, the Guardian bigger it up saying "majority of Muslims hate ISIS" or some such, which misses the point IMO.

quarky

ISIS and terrorism are different issues, but as I said, people could be in favour of a caliphate but not the methods. Or people in Pakistan might just hate the US even more than ISIS, so it becomes a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type scenario. Note that even in Pakistan, only 9% (not 90%!) found ISIS favourable.

"what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities."

Yeah, I am still waiting for stats on that.

lloyd

quarky said:

ISIS and terrorism are different issues, but as I said, people could be in favour of a caliphate but not the methods. Or people in Pakistan might just hate the US even more than ISIS, so it becomes a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type scenario. Note that even in Pakistan, only 9% (not 90%!) found ISIS favourable.

"what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities."

Yeah, I am still waiting for stats on that.

Read the wiki link above for the stats mate. 

Wow some apologism going on there too-the Pew stats are pretty self explanatory but if you're going to second guess want people mean when asked a simple question then I'm not sure what else I can add to this or discuss further with you?

quarky

lloyd said:

quarky said:

ISIS and terrorism are different issues, but as I said, people could be in favour of a caliphate but not the methods. Or people in Pakistan might just hate the US even more than ISIS, so it becomes a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type scenario. Note that even in Pakistan, only 9% (not 90%!) found ISIS favourable.

"what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities."

Yeah, I am still waiting for stats on that.

Read the wiki link above for the stats mate. 

Wow some apologism going on there too-the Pew stats are pretty self explanatory but if you're going to second guess want people mean when asked a simple question then I'm not sure what else I can add to this or discuss further with you?

Oh that wiki link. Sure, if you prefer that a Wikipedia list to actual compiled stats. I will take the stats thanks. Try this one:

And no, no apologism, I just refuse to read more into the stats that what they actually say. And that is, that even in Pakistan, only 9% have a favourable opinion of ISIS. Sure, there are lot of people who say they "don't know", but you are talking about a country that has a pretty poor relationship with the West, and that has internet access figures barely out of double-digits. They don't have access to the same wealth of information that we do. So no, I am just refusing to make 9% into more than it is.

Anyway, I think the facts clearly show that the recent attacks in France and Belgium were not religiously motivated, were done by people who were alienated and had a lot of issues going on, often didn't even pray or attend mosques, and when they had a political reason for their killings, it was because of the bombings of civilians in the ME. On top of that, the stats show beyond any doubt that most terrorism in Europe is related to separatists or other causes, and even though both islam and Christianity texts talk about the requirement to "spread the message to the rest of the world", and despite what many muslims feel about seeing other muslims killed by, well, loads of different groups, only a tiny minority of muslims view ISIS favourably, and all the "terrorist" organisations associated with islam represent an even smaller percentage.

quarky

Ro_S said:

^

Saudi Arabia spends a lot in the West on spreading Wahhabi Islam.   They finance mosques, centres, schooling, preaching and literature. 

About 80% of USA mosques are under Wahhabi preaching influence.   I dunno what the equivalent % figure is in UK, but it's about 1,800 mosques.

Nail. Head. They represent less than 1% of muslims apparently, and they are of course funded by our "allies". Perhaps if we didn't keep funding and support the lunatics in Saudi, there might be a way to make things better.

Or I suppose we could continue to assist in funnelling money and weapons to the lunatic fringe and then complain when they use them against us after we bomb them. Yeah, that makes sense, and is working so well.

ToneControl

so, we're talking about ISIS, and you present stats that end the year before ISIS started

when I estimated that 10% of Muslims support ISIS, you dismissed the very idea, not you have the data it's a "tiny minority"
10% of a society backing a group of killers is enough to sustain it, for example Northern Ireland before everyone got sick of the killings

quarky

LOL. Right OK. So find me more up to date stats then.

It is a little difficult to keep up in this thread. Firstly the terrorists were doing it in the name of Islam (despite the statements from the ones in Paris which completely contract that, and the others didn't live an Islamic lifestyle). Then it all the fault of the Koran. But when you point out the bible has just as much bile, that is dismissed as being in the OT, then dismissed because Jesus wasn't referring to the OT laws after all, even those they are the same ones in the Torah. Then other passages are dismissed because they are in the bible, are in the NT, but are in Revelations. Wow.

But wait, there's more!

When talking about evil done in the name of Christianity, those are dismissed because they were not in the past twenty years, and the ones that are, for some reason don't count, because apparently they are lunatics and such a small %. Yet when I show the % of lunatic muslims, that too is dismissed, because of apparent support (yes, a whole 9%) of muslims who are favourable to ISIS in Pakistan, a country with poor access to information, and a terrible relationship with the West (no wonder Pakistan gets bombed by the US regularly, but lets just ignore that).

But wait, there is still more!

So Lloyd says we should break down terrorist incidents for the past 20 years, and presents a list from Wikipedia. When I show stats from terrorism in Europe in recent years though, because despite showing a massive % of terrorism not being related to islam, they are dismissed as being too old (only going to 2013).

But still more!

Wahhabi Islam is labelled as the problem (with some validity it has to be said), but this is the same sect that makes up less than 1% of all muslims, and is pushed aggressive into other regions by Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that receives weapons and support from the West.

But don't label the problem as anything to do with us bombing the crap out of the ME, killing women and children, and supporting the lunatics in Saudi Arabia, and huge problems with marginalisation in parts of Europe. Oh no, *that* is not the problem, the problem is obviously islam.

Sorry, don't buy it.

Ro_S

quarky said:

"what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities."

Yeah, I am still waiting for stats on that.

I wanna know, then, who else is involved in the majority of terrorism in the West.  Well?
 

quarky

Err, non-muslim Westerners?

Ro_S

quarky said:

Err, non-muslim Westerners?

You believe that the majority of terrorist attacks in the West in the last few years are committed by non-Muslims?    I wanna see those stats.

Ro_S

Here's some stats ...

So far in 2016:

Over 1,000 Islamic terror attacks, across dozens of countries worldwide.  Killing over 11,000 people and injuring 14,000 more.

Sambostar

I don't care how many deaths there are to be honest, I'd rather people were in touch with themselves and their ancestors and forefathers and appreciated their lives in the moment, rather than making grandiose gesticulating bullshite wading statements about harmonious wankerism.

And woman shouldn't wear underpants

And nobody has any sympathy until it happens to you, let's be honest. It's human nature and the persecuted by empathy theorists should fight back with an axe and waken those to reality.  A sharpened axe through the forearm.

The unaffected gesticulate about the righteous way whilst the afflicted are still and silent.

Clarky

lloyd said:

quarky said:

ToneControl said:

quarky said:

Ro_S said:

@quarky said:

- if 10% of muslims are terrorists (I assume that is your insinuation from the 90% you mention), why are the other 90% peaceful (and I have no idea where you get the idea that 10% of all muslims are involved in terrorism)? Do you think that is because those 90% are the ones who don't practice islam correctly and the 10% are the ones who do?

Second, 
@ToneControl did not suggest that 10% of Muslims are terrorists.   He posited that he perhaps 10% of Muslims follow a form of Islam that is not peaceful. 

Well he suggested that only 90% were peaceful. So my insinuation is that the other 10% are not peaceful. If there is some kind of "third way" that is not "peaceful" or "not peaceful", that make up the other 10%, I am all ears waiting for an explanation.

Or in case you want to weasel out and claim that a significant proportion follow a violent form of Islam (although I haven't see many facts present at all on here to back up the claims made), which one?

Because by doing so, we have to ignore, or completely the professed motives and background of most of the people involved in the recent attacks. Actually, we can't ignore it, we need to pretend that there motives were actually different in some cases.

With the IRA  in NI,  no one would say that all Catholics were terrorists. However,  a significant minority fully agreed with most of the IRA actions. A larger number empathised with them, whilst perhaps not endorsing them, and would not have dreamed of informing on them. 

Same with the protestant terrorists. Some strong support, some lukewarm, some fear.  

In the muslim world, there are all sorts of people.  The question is  "how many endorse or are content to tolerate Jihad?"
A simple google search turns up the first hit (I can be a bit sarky too, we can drop that if you like, I don't think it adds to the quality of debate):   http://metrocosm.com/support-isis-muslim-world-perceptions-vs-reality/
so in many muslim countries, support for ISIS is around 10%
It's 21% in Syria, and we are seeing large scale migration from Syria into the EU.

Now, tell me again not to worry, because genocide, slavery and  mass rape are all  nothing to worry about, because social deprivation probably is the real trigger for that behaviour, and we can easily fix that.  I don't see any other societies currently giving support to an organisation committing war crimes on an industrial scale.

So what's the  best course of action then? Improvements in benefits and job prospects in French slums?

 

Ha ha. No, I don't mind your sarky comments. You guys come across as smart reasonable people, so I have no problem at all with it. I hope mine don't come across badly either!

"Support for ISIS" is again difficult I think, because it is like the referendum. Support means many different things to different people depending on what they learn/know. So of that 10%, how many would answer "Yes" to support of a caliphate and how many would support terrorism to get there? A caliphate is a perfectly legitimate aim for many muslims because that is just an area under islam rule, much as the Pope and Emperor ruled Eastern and Western Europe. I am sure many Catholics would want to see a return to papal authority, as they consider him to be gods infallible representative on Earth.

And I never said "don't worry". People should worry, but as we have seen, these recent terrorist acts have been a reaction to events in the ME, and you talk about poverty and social depravation, but actually, those are the solutions to the problem. THe fringe elements of Islam are financed from Saudi Arabia, who we in the West keep supporting, and keep giving money too. We deserve a hell of a lot of "credit" for creating the monster. And now it is like a hydra. OK, terrible comparison but "cutting off it's heads" is not helping, it making the problem worse. Maybe, just maybe, we could actually ask muslims in this country, in France, and in the Middle East what they want to do to resolve the issue, because bombing the fuck out of people clearly isn't working.

We need to accept that the fringe elements represent a miniscule percentage of muslims.





The fact that there are more violent incidents associate with muslims at the moment is not down to the religion, but down to the shit that is happening in the ME at the moment. And by (wrongly) making that tiny minority into the representatives of that faith, you are playing into the hands of the fundamentalist nut-cases.

No one gives two hoots how large a proportion of Islam Isis are, no one is saying they are representative of Islam.

what people are saying is that Muslims are carrying out the majority of terrorist activities.

the stats and facts do not lie in this regard.

seems to me that psychos, angry / gullible types and villains that just happen to be muslim are doing all this
and they are using islam as a convenient means to justify their crap and to recruit more psychos, angry / gullible types and villains

they are not good, normal or some cases even particularly devout.. islam is simply a means to an end..
shame that in the eyes of far too many people, muslims are being cast in a very poor light..

Clarky

Ro_S said:

Here's some stats ...

So far in 2016:

Over 1,000 Islamic terror attacks, across dozens of countries worldwide.  Killing over 11,000 people and injuring 14,000 more.

that stat simply means that a handful of nut cases have been busy

Clarky

Ro_S said:

quarky said:

Err, non-muslim Westerners?

You believe that the majority of terrorist attacks in the West in the last few years are committed by non-Muslims?    I wanna see those stats.

here's a thought… just an idea… nothing more..

there are some people that are for whatever reason somehow messed up in the head..
and they will find some reason for going loopy can causing some sort of mass killing..

in the US there have been many cases of people going on the rampage in a school or shopping mall with guns killing lots of people at random.. but if he's not a muslim it's simply a nutcase going nuts…
and it's happened here in the UK too several times..
and of course that fella in Sweden…

it is my personal belief that these sorts of people will latch onto any sort of idea or ideology to justify / fuel their urge to go on such a rampage… could be religion, or an ideology, or simply hatred at the world because something / someone fkd their life up…
if someone causes a mass killing that is not a muslim, they're a nutter
if someone causes a mass killing and they are a muslim, they're a terrorist

the only difference in my opinion, is that the nutter using islam as their 'cause' will be encouraged to do so by organisations like ISIS because they like the press it generates.. 
and where non-muslim nutters are acting alone, organisations like ISIS will be like a magnet to nutters that just happen to be muslim..

I know this cannot be true for all cases… but the world is not short of very disturbed / angry people..