It is true, and yes,my knight in shining Armour is right.

It's true now, because the Irish have been quiet for a while, but there's actually more Muslims in the UK than there are people in Northern Ireland, so I'm not even sure this really dumb per capita argument holds water.

That's ****ing scary. The same mayor that said terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city"? The same mayor that was a legal consultant for one of the 9/11 bomber?

What he said was "What I do know is part and parcel of living in a great global city is you've got to be prepared for these things. You've got to be vigilant. You've got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. You've got to support the security services..."

I mean, what's the complaint here? Is "part and parcel" of living in a city being completely unprepared for something to happen?

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk...-a7775246.html

"**** you, I'm Millwall."

Tell 'ard bastards like this that being prepared isn't part and parcel of British life.

dagger9: I have removed the image you posted for a couple of reasons:

1) The source is not credible

2) The 2+2 site rules prohibit posting "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable" material. Emphasis added by me.

You are welcome to discuss the relationship between Islam as a religion and terrorism, but you need to do so by citing reasonably credible sources, without using unnecessarily inflammatory language, and without indiscriminately painting 1.5 billion people as terrorists.

Thanks.

The fact that all criminals, regardless of what they have done, are entitled to legal representation and the best defense they can get is one of the most important parts of Western civilization. I have zero tolerance for anyone, on either side, who criticizes lawyers based on the clients they defend. It betrays massive ignorance and a lack of respect for our values.

I'm going to keep practicing my right wing rhetoric, so:

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE VICTIMS!?

Why not?

Seems pretty reasonable to me. With that said what makes a source credible exactly?

How is the death count of recent Islamist attacks hateful? You'd think the attacks themselves are hateful not the statistics.


You're absolutely right. Radical muslims are estimated between 15% and 25%, let's round that down to 10%, that is still over 100 millions that are in favor of these attacks. Pointing that out is not Islamophobia and facts don't care about your feelings.

But they said they're non-partisan, so I guess they must be.

Sadiq Khan was not the legal representative of any of the 9/11 terrorists. That is a false meme promoted on social media by the racist neo-Nazi group Britain First, one of whose members murdered the MP Jo Cox.

Not surprised you should be repeating it.

This would appear to be incoherent rambling.

With regard to your graphic: they do not provide citations for nearly any of the items on their list of attacks, and it's clear that they also choose to include literally any instance of violence related to any group of Muslims, regardless of whether or not those instances are actually related to terrorism. However, they clearly don't employ the same methodology when counting (by which I mean failing to count) instances of violence among non-Muslims.

More generally, the site is obviously intended to foment hatred and distrust of all Muslims. Dehumanizing propaganda of the kind found throughout the site violates the rules of this forum.

This is pretty much correct (Britain is actually directly involved and not merely supportive). And this opinion, once fringe, was advanced by the leftist candidate whose party subsequently gained a lot of seats. Once again, what was once considered leftist fringe opinion has turned out to be simple common sense, easily arrived at once a decision is made to take off the blinders.

If you want to stop terror then stop committing it. I wish I could make it even simpler for the reactionary right, but it seems irreducible.

We could literally do whatever ISIS told us to do besides convert to Islam and they would still do everything in their power to conquer us. We could even offer to pay them their jizya and they would accept payment only as long as they were busy fighting someone else. As soon as they were done fighting that other group they would be right back to trying to destroy us.

Please educate yourself on Islamic terrorism.

It's a fair point that now ISIS are here and become the size they are that ignoring them and hoping they go away is probably not an option any more. But then, that's always the point made. So we wipe out whoever is causing troubles, and then we go right back to destabilising the Middle East and wait for another threat to emerge that we just can't ignore.

So what people are really saying isn't sympathy for ISIS and live and let live. It's more on the lines of: while dealing with terrorism, maybe we could just have a little try at not creating a **** ton more of it by selling arms to scumbags, deposing governments when it suits us, and lending a huge hand in making that part of the world worse.

Welcome to the forum.

I'm sure there are, by now, some die hard fighters who would keep going after all momentum was gone. That's not very relevant though. The fact is ISIS is a reaction to our robbing, torture, venal statecraft, and killing- all of it illegal under international law. If we had a morally acceptable foreign policy ISIS would be starved of what's fueling it.

It might be convenient for you to pretend as though these reactions come from nowhere, but people living in the theaters of American exceptionalism don't always find it so. Until you can look in the mirror and admit what your own government has done, and done first, you will know nothing about Islamic terrorism.

Lol Guantanamo Bay says hello.

I haven't checked the site. Will do so, kinda grunching here. But I am concerned about your first paragraph. It appears the material is legit, but you are policing it based on content. "It's not quite good enough in the research department. It's a little biased. So I'm going to delete it." Sounds unfortunate to me.

The second paragraph is about other things on the site, and seems irrelevant.

I will follow up with a read of the material.

Edit: just realized I can't follow up with a read of the material.

It's this kind of reading comprehension that leads to posting graphics like that in the first place.

This is the more serious objection in my estimation:

I have no objection to people posting actual legitimate data, but not obvious misinformation.

Give me a break. Reading comprehension my ass. You don't think we could reasonably argue about whether or not providing a cite for most of their terror events makes the source legit or not? Of course we could reasonably discuss that. But you go straight to "reading comprehension." I didn't have the source, as I very clearly pointed out.

Are you saying that to be a legit source, the source has to provide a cite to every event? Does the NYT do that? WaPo? No, they don't. We have a rule about providing a source when asked, or backing off, but that is not a rule about the source of every source.

"Reading comprehension?" Bull ****. That tells me you did not actually want to have a conversation, but rather, just attempted to call your opponent stupid.



Agreed, that that is a good objection. I would have thought it would be a discussion worth having. Maybe not, I didn't have the source at the time.

Well how do you mistake "they don't provide citations" for "the material is legit, but you are policing based on content"?

Again, most news sources do not provide the source for all of their material. It could be legit or not legit, based on does not provide sources for most of their stuff. Based just on that, we don't know.