• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loren Pechtel said:
DrZoidberg said:
It is interesting how Islamic terrorists are called "terrorists". While western racist terrorists are called "mass murders". This is the first time I've seen an Islamic terrorist also be called a mass murderer. Not sure what it means.

But Anders Behring Breivik is more often called a mass murderer than terrorist. Same goes for the Charleston Church Shooting. Both attackers explained how the motivation for the acts were to incite terror. They wanted to trigger a race war. Yet, they're "mass murders" and not "terrorists".
Click to expand...

Terrorist = acts to scare people into doing what they want.

Mass murderer = simply kills a bunch of people without a political motivation.

Crazies are normally considered mass murderers even if in their mind there was a political reason.
Click to expand...

The Charleston killer said he was trying to start a race war. Same for ABB. How isn't that terrorism?
 
DrZoidberg said:
The Charleston killer said he was trying to start a race war. Same for ABB. How isn't that terrorism?
Click to expand...

Clearly insane. So it can't be terrorism. Killing a bunch of blacks in US won't start a race war. To start a race war in the US one needs power, say that of a president, and to have publicly delivered previous indicating his intent to kill a bunch of blacks when he gets into office. I wonder who ....
 
fromderinside said:
DrZoidberg said:
The Charleston killer said he was trying to start a race war. Same for ABB. How isn't that terrorism?
Click to expand...

Clearly insane. So it can't be terrorism. Killing a bunch of blacks in US won't start a race war. To start a race war in the US one needs power, say that of a president, and to have publicly delivered previous indicating his intent to kill a bunch of blacks when he gets into office. I wonder who ....
Click to expand...

Not really power just a trigger (not just in the sense of that on a gun). A hobo with a gun killing African Americans or a nurse secretly poisoning African Americans is sufficient to start protests and riots.
 
How bad is crime from the influx of Migrants.
There are quite a few videos on the internet.
However I think this one may be well put together and possibly not just a generalisation.

I have travelled to Germany, France and Holland. There are areas where no European looking people walk but in most cases I did not feel there was anything greatly unsafe. However I was warned by Dutch police not to go to certain areas in Holland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6qH13erP_U

Hungarian Premier speaks against mass immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_...ua48FkH4xLcyprp6dsCHaLADPmLxIktK6GpVpwi1ZrS6w

Border control
 
Well, if StormRoof was a terrorist so was the Fort Hood shooter and vice versa. I am not 100% sold on either of them being a standard terrorist.

Normally you think of some level of organization needed for violence to be a terrorist act. But the internet can help people self radicalize.

I would say that McVeigh was a terrorist and so was Breivik. 100% sold.
 
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
 
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

In Europe, there have been few enough of either as to be newsworthy. Like plane crashes.

In Africa, there have been so many of both as to be un-newsworthy. Like car crashes.

So it really depends on your point of view - or on whether you are trying to justify your valueless biases.

Basically, terrorism is not a threat at all, in the OECD. But that news sells no papers, and wins no votes.
 
bilby said:
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

In Europe, there have been few enough of either as to be newsworthy. Like plane crashes.

In Africa, there have been so many of both as to be un-newsworthy. Like car crashes.

So it really depends on your point of view - or on whether you are trying to justify your valueless biases.

Basically, terrorism is not a threat at all, in the OECD. But that news sells no papers, and wins no votes.
Click to expand...

The biggest killer in the West is still old age.

However, a rather dated article printed 16 years ago suggests that in the US a lot of people die from conventional medicines.
http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
 
fromderinside said:
DrZoidberg said:
The Charleston killer said he was trying to start a race war. Same for ABB. How isn't that terrorism?
Click to expand...

Clearly insane. So it can't be terrorism. Killing a bunch of blacks in US won't start a race war. To start a race war in the US one needs power, say that of a president, and to have publicly delivered previous indicating his intent to kill a bunch of blacks when he gets into office. I wonder who ....
Click to expand...

And the caliphate is likely to spread across Europe how? There's a couple of models with which to view armed conflicts. In many of these terrorism is the last desperate attempt by the losing side to make some sort of dent in the enemy. It's the type of warfare you get from a broke army or an army without popular support. These models work regardless of the mental health of the attackers.

You don't need to be crazy to commit atrocities. Studies of soldiers has shown that anybody is capable of committing any atrocity. It's just a question of training. Anybody can train their minds for this shit. This is an important insight.

We like pathologising terrorists because it's an easy answer and we can see it as a mental health issue, ie not our problem. We can throw money at mental health institutions and ignore it. But any health professional can tell you that mentally ill people tend to be less dangerous than non-mentally ill people. There are of course exceptions. As with everything. The important take away is that just saying that somebody is mentally ill doesn't explain anything. In fact, it makes it harder to explain why they did it. Also, seriously mentally ill people tend to behave like crazies, ie already got an eye on them. They just look crazy. So they're less likely to manage to pull it off. They're less likely to get access to training and support to pull off terrorist attacks.

And lastly, we need to get away from mental illness being a get out of jail free card. Everybody is remote controlled by their genes, upbringing and various emotional triggers, none of which we have any control over. Crazy people aren't any more remote controlled or driven by compulsions than the rest of us.
 
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

It's an unfair comparison. "Christian" countries are predominantly peaceful. While countries with conflict today are mostly Muslim. If you remember the Yugoslavian conflict the bad guys were Serbian. That was genocide and terrorism on a scale we hadn't seen since WW2. A Christian nation. Religion might be used as an excuse. But religion is never the reason for a terrorist attack. That's looking at it all backwards. Take a look at the history of Europe and America. If you think it's Christianity that has made us peaceful you need a history lesson.

9/11 is a good example. Usama Bin Laden gave a list of reasons for the attack. None had anything to do with religion.
 
angelo said:
The difference being islam is an ideology, and it's political. Xtianity is mostly religious in nature!
Click to expand...
Isn't "religion" a subclass of "ideology"? (picked mostly because it's customary).
How do you make a distinction here?

Anyway, abortion is nearly always banned across nearly all of Latin America. Catholicism (and now Evangelicals too) has a lot to do with it.
Divorce was banned for a very long time, and so on.

More generally, political involvement by the Catholic Church (in different countries) is well over 1000 years old. The present-day CC is not the same as, say, the 10th century CC - which was far more powerful with respect to local governments -, but still, the CC and other Christian churches have political influence in many cases.

The main differences (in this context) seem to be that:
1. Christianity is much less politically influential overall in predominantly Christian countries than Islam is in predominantly Muslim countries. That is to a considerable extent because a much greater percentage of Christians than Muslims seem to have a low interest in religion. But that's just overall; there are places in which Christian influence appears to be huge.

2. Leaving aside the similarly evil sets of afterlife beliefs, the present-day predominant versions of Christianity are considerably less evil than the present-day predominant versions of Islam.
 
whichphilosophy said:
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

There have been more Jewish attacks than Muslim attacks on US soil since 1980

http://concisepolitics.com/2015/11/...ext-came-communists-and-jews-combined-for-12/

This is quoting the Princetown University figures though the article seems to veer off into conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
So 6% of attacks were by muslims, versus 7% by Jews. But demographically, there are about twice as many Jews as there are muslims so per capita that means muslims are way overrepresented. Also I bet the figures are even more lopsided if you started in 2000 rather than 1980.
 
angelo said:
The difference being islam is an ideology, and it's political. Xtianity is mostly religious in nature!
Click to expand...

You apparently need a history lesson. This is an extremely recent western development. 100 - 150 years ago there was no difference. In the 900 - 1500 the Islamic world was the liberal and the progressive one of the two. Why? Because the Islamic world was richer and more technologically advanced. Enter a string of incompetent sultans and centuries of palace intriguing and the tables were turned.
 
Jayjay said:
Australian news crew is attacked in Sweden:

Click to expand...


The film crew was there with Lars Sjunesson and Avpixlat. Famous racists. And off camera. No shit people got annoyed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops saw what they were up to and wanted no part of it. These guys are total cunts. Lars Sjunesson is a raving lunatic.

It's interesting that the film crew went looking for the most racist Swedes they could find and asked them to show them around. My money is that the film crew got exactly the footage they had been promised.

This is pure media manipulation
 
DrZoidberg said:
Enter a string of incompetent sultans and centuries of palace intriguing and the tables were turned.
Click to expand...

Naw. ME nations went for strong men at the same time Europe was including the people in government is the essential difference. Can it be because Muslims worshipers are to the Mullahs, "my children"?

Or, is it because there is no secular structure related to Islam?
 
whichphilosophy said:
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

There have been more Jewish attacks than Muslim attacks on US soil since 1980

http://concisepolitics.com/2015/11/...ext-came-communists-and-jews-combined-for-12/

This is quoting the Princetown University figures though the article seems to veer off into conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust that article as far as I could throw it.

Note they start out saying:

JEWS DID TWICE AS MANY TERROR ATTACKS COMPARED TO MUSLIMS
Click to expand...

But then their actual data shows:

NEXT CAME COMMUNISTS AND JEWS COMBINED FOR 12%
Click to expand...

And an examination of the actual data shows Jews at 7% and Communists at 5%.

Furthermore, the only way you get such parity is by ignoring the severity. In that time how many died from Islamist attacks vs Jewish attacks??

Note, also, that the "source" for this data is globalresearch.ca--a conspiracy site.

In other words, they are taking crackpot data and greatly exaggerating it to support Muslims and denigrate Jews.

As far as I'm concerned a far better metric is how many died from terrorism from the various sides.

- - - Updated - - -

DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
What one must ask him/herself is this. : Since say, 9/11. How many muslim terrorist attacks have there been as compared to any and all xtian attacks?
Click to expand...

It's an unfair comparison. "Christian" countries are predominantly peaceful. While countries with conflict today are mostly Muslim. If you remember the Yugoslavian conflict the bad guys were Serbian. That was genocide and terrorism on a scale we hadn't seen since WW2. A Christian nation. Religion might be used as an excuse. But religion is never the reason for a terrorist attack. That's looking at it all backwards. Take a look at the history of Europe and America. If you think it's Christianity that has made us peaceful you need a history lesson.

9/11 is a good example. Usama Bin Laden gave a list of reasons for the attack. None had anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now! Rwanda was far worse than Serbia. Sudan is far worse. Congo is far worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom