Terrorist attack in Stockholm

[lgfualol]

59 minutes ago, stix said:

 

You stated your claim so back it up. Because at the minute you come across as a massive racist. I will happily apologise if/when you show the evidence. 

His sauce was probably something Britain First made up

[Jattdogg]

I think some people look at the muslim population and think "what can they do to help stop this" or "why dont they stop their own kind". Truth is they cant really do much other than report hateful imams and those spewing  any racist garbage at mosques etc etc.  Sure they  can try to talk would be jihadis out of it but usually if you've gone that far then you have a purpose and mission in life. Nothing will stop you.

 

Like some have said Muslims themselves are probably the most likely to be kiled by so called islamic terrorists. 

 

You cant stop an idealogy like ISIS now. Theres too many who will  continue it when others are killed or silenced.

 

Terror is something we will unfortunately always have to deal with in some shape or form.

 

We have to remain vigilant, know who is coming and going out of the country and clamp down on any race or religion from being allowed to openly practice hate.

 

Sadly "Terrorism" exists in all cultures.

 

As for this terror attack its a damn shame as always.  Nobody deserves to die that way.

 

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

On 7.4.2017 at 20:03, bovril said:

So much violence around, it's depressing as fvck.

A bit over the top.

 

Depressing it is these days in particular because of the (amount of) media coverage. We're confronted with "bad news" 24/7. Everything gets reported. Modern technology can reach you wherever you are, whenever the press wants to. It does add to a subjective increase of violence worldwide, when in fact we've always had terror and conflicts ever since mankind evolved from the apes. You could even argue that the world has become a safer place in the past 60, 70 years.

 

Sorry to go slightly off-topic. Not trying to have a go at you, either.

 

 

[Wymsey]

It's the 'radicalised' individuals that think what extremists are telling them what to do is what the religion they've transferred to/converted to see as right against other religions/different walks of life - that's the issue here it seems.

 

Traditional/'homegrown' Muslims etc (the ones that have know what their religion stands for ever since it existed), those that know religion is about staying true to values/beliefs that are politically-accepted and respecting others in the world and actually don't want anything like this to happen - have to be somehow seen by Dangerous Tiger etc as kept apart from those (such as the Islamic State) who try to twist the rules on this specific religion such as undertaking these type of events to show how 'superior' they're compared to other beliefs.

 

Just because a few brainwashed individuals are threatening to tarnish Islam etc via these such events, it does not mean the religion in question is 'root of all evil'; it's only because, unfortunately, a strong terrorist network has been so far unsuccessfully defeated from preparing and implementing these type of events happening again and it's from the same organisation that wants to change the way the religion is all about.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

A bit over the top.

 

Depressing it is these days in particular because of the (amount of) media coverage. We're confronted with "bad news" 24/7. Everything gets reported. Modern technology can reach you wherever you are, whenever the press wants to. It does add to a subjective increase of violence worldwide, when in fact we've always had terror and conflicts ever since mankind evolved from the apes. You could even argue that the world has become a safer place in the past 60, 70 years.

 

Sorry to go slightly off-topic. Not trying to have a go at you, either.

 

 

 

This. Pretty sure stats (those that exist) back a gradual trend towards decrease in violent deaths as a proportion of population too.

[Jattdogg]

28 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 It does add to a subjective increase of violence worldwide, when in fact we've always had terror and conflicts ever since mankind evolved from the apes.

 

 

Speak for yourself mate

[bovril]

50 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

A bit over the top.

 

Depressing it is these days in particular because of the (amount of) media coverage. We're confronted with "bad news" 24/7. Everything gets reported. Modern technology can reach you wherever you are, whenever the press wants to. It does add to a subjective increase of violence worldwide, when in fact we've always had terror and conflicts ever since mankind evolved from the apes. You could even argue that the world has become a safer place in the past 60, 70 years.

 

Sorry to go slightly off-topic. Not trying to have a go at you, either.

 

 

The World is a very violent place. You basically admit that yourself with the 'evolve from the apes' sentence. And if 'everything gets reported' then it's not exaggerating, it's just made us realise that fact more than we did in the past.

I'm not naive about it, it's not some discovery I've stumbled on in the last few weeks. But it's pretty miserable really.

[Rincewind]

On the news now a report about Etta from the Basque region south of france handing over weapons. They were terrorists but not Muslim. Did pep[e want to ban the French and the Spanish> Theirs do not feature in the news now we have ones from other parts of the world a little more active.

 

There has always been violence. Before we had a war every few years to occupy the youth and reduce the population. In the Victorian era there were still a few murders but if the victim was not famous or a 'gentleman' they were given a paupers burial and forgotten. Police or investigation methods were not so good.

[MC Prussian]

26 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Speak for yourself mate

Or you could check your history book.

[iniesta]

Nothing to see here, religion of peace IMO 

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, stix said:

 

You stated your claim so back it up. Because at the minute you come across as a massive racist. I will happily apologise if/when you show the evidence. 

I'm not a racist, I'm just not in favour of a religion that calls for its followers to take up arms against people who do not believe in allah. This is what part of The Quran teaches and I suggest you try reading some of it. Wtf has that got to do with racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religeon that promotes violence against people that don't believe in it, namely Christianity.

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Or you could check your history book.

 Was just a joke

[Buce]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I'm not a racist, I'm just not in favour of a religion that calls for its followers to take up arms against people who do not believe in allah. This is what part of The Quran teaches and I suggest you try reading some of it. Wtf has that got to do with racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religeon that promotes violence against people that don't believe in it, namely Christianity.

 

Have you read the Koran?

[stix]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I'm not a racist, I'm just not in favour of a religion that calls for its followers to take up arms against people who do not believe in allah. This is what part of The Quran teaches and I suggest you try reading some of it. Wtf has that got to do with racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religeon that promotes violence against people that don't believe in it, namely Christianity.

 

I have read parts of it. Words can be portrayed in whichever way you want to perceive them. Parts of the bible can be perceived as telling believers to kill non believers too. 

 

Show on me this 15-20% bollocks you claimed yesterday. 

[Dr The Singh]

On 08/04/2017 at 08:44, Buce said:

 

It seems that it has become a socially acceptable prejudice.

 

And on here, the fact that Thracian gets to post his racist views with impunity has emboldened the rest of the pond life.

His views are just as viable as anyone elses.  I don't believe they are racist, there is nothing wrong in being controversial

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, stix said:

 

I have read parts of it. Words can be portrayed in whichever way you want to perceive them. Parts of the bible can be perceived as telling believers to kill non believers too. 

 

Show on me this 15-20% bollocks you claimed yesterday. 

So both are controversial, doesn't make either right.  I will say one thing, the prophet of the bible is slot different to the prophet of the Qur'an.  

[Dr The Singh]

On 07/04/2017 at 20:46, Izzy Muzzett said:

I find it really sad that you now feel that way.

 

The vast majority of Muslims I've met in my lifetime have been kind and thoughtful souls. It's a real shame that the odd nutter has caused you to feel that way about an entire religion.

 

If I was as stand up Muslim person I'd be distraught that people would be more wary of me now just because of the actions of a few fanatics. I feel really sorry for the Muslim community in general who have to keep defending themselves against this shit. 

I honestly believe the good Muslims.are the solution.  Only they can root out the extremism within there community.  For too long g they have let extremist preachers, etc propagate hate while they just sat and watched.

 

My personal experience has shown this ignorance, Muslims firstly need to acknowledge the problem, acknowledge there doctrine has elements of extremism and they then need to contextualise and challenge the extreme elements 

[Dr The Singh]

10 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I'm not a racist, I'm just not in favour of a religion that calls for its followers to take up arms against people who do not believe in allah. This is what part of The Quran teaches and I suggest you try reading some of it. Wtf has that got to do with racism. Islam is not a race, it's a religeon that promotes violence against people that don't believe in it, namely Christianity.

Unfortunately, the 2 largest religions in the world hav e the same aim, to convert the world to there doctrine.  One used to use violence, and one now uses violence.

 

Any faith that states '...Right hand posseses' must be challenged.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Unfortunately, the 2 largest religions in the world have the same aim, to convert the world to there doctrine.  One used to use violence, and one now uses violence.

 

Any faith that states '...Right hand possesses' must be challenged.

 

Pretty much. Abrahamic religions for you.

 

The fundie Christians have become more sophisticated in their exertion of control, though (in places with a functional societal/legal system, anyway). They use the legislature, courtrooms and media in lieu of the gun, knife and bomb (mostly, though of course there are exceptions). It's equally good at destroying the lives of those they consider undesirable and maintaining control, involves less risk and leaves a lot less mess for people to talk about afterwards - win all round. Have a look at how that works over here, for instance.

[Thracian]

16 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

I think some people look at the muslim population and think "what can they do to help stop this" or "why dont they stop their own kind". Truth is they cant really do much other than report hateful imams and those spewing  any racist garbage at mosques etc etc.  Sure they  can try to talk would be jihadis out of it but usually if you've gone that far then you have a purpose and mission in life. Nothing will stop you.

 

Like some have said Muslims themselves are probably the most likely to be kiled by so called islamic terrorists. 

 

You cant stop an idealogy like ISIS now. Theres too many who will  continue it when others are killed or silenced.

 

Terror is something we will unfortunately always have to deal with in some shape or form.

 

We have to remain vigilant, know who is coming and going out of the country and clamp down on any race or religion from being allowed to openly practice hate.

 

Sadly "Terrorism" exists in all cultures.

 

As for this terror attack its a damn shame as always.  Nobody deserves to die that way.

 

 

 

 

Vigilant? The authorities seem to know of every terrorist mentioned in relation to major incidents both here and in Europe.

 

It's why they can't be dealt with effectively that's the problem.

 

As for "terrorism existing in all cultures" whether you're right or wrong is irrelevent.

 

Terrorists or any kind already living within our own society are our problem. But inviting others to come without full and properly verified checks, who might themselves add to the problem, is just irresponsible.

 

And to this day I wonder why we keep doing it. And not just us but other countries too.

 

 

 

[Thracian]

15 hours ago, Rincewind said:

On the news now a report about Etta from the Basque region south of france handing over weapons. They were terrorists but not Muslim. Did pep[e want to ban the French and the Spanish> Theirs do not feature in the news now we have ones from other parts of the world a little more active.

 

There has always been violence. Before we had a war every few years to occupy the youth and reduce the population. In the Victorian era there were still a few murders but if the victim was not famous or a 'gentleman' they were given a paupers burial and forgotten. Police or investigation methods were not so good.

 

 

Basque terrorism featured in lots of news. Has anyone even vaguelly suggested one form of terrorism might not be as bad as another?   

 

 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

 

Basque terrorism featured in lots of news. Has anyone even vaguelly suggested one form of terrorism might not be as bad as another?   

 

 

 

 

Yes, me, Sikh terrorism targeted only police and armed forces.  Is that better then kids and women, i would say so?

 

The biggest terror attack by Sikhs was conducted by the Indian authorities.  Sad that it is, but innocent people did die

 

Is.any terrorism justified?  It's a deep question, people of.my kin, saw there daughters and wives raped infront of them while the world watched

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

 

Basque terrorism featured in lots of news. Has anyone even vaguelly suggested one form of terrorism might not be as bad as another?   

 

1

The focus on one over all others at this time suggests that yes, people might be suggesting that implicitly rather than explicitly.

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The focus on one over all others at this time suggests that yes, people might be suggesting that implicitly rather than explicitly.

Of course you can never rank deaths as 'worse' than others, but not all terrorism is the same. The attacks of Coptic churches in Egypt are very different in motive, technique and result to, say, the attacks carried out by the IRA or ETA. There's a lot of whataboutery when stuff like this happens, which is missing the point imo.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

Of course you can never rank deaths as 'worse' than others, but not all terrorism is the same. The attacks of Coptic churches in Egypt are very different in motive, technique and result to, say, the attacks carried out by the IRA or ETA. There's a lot of whataboutery when stuff like this happens, which is missing the point imo.

 

That's fair. I think though at a fundamental level though, the ideology and the motive is the same though the technique and result (at a cosmetic level) differ - it's all shit, it's just executed differently.