Quick reaction by the British police and an odd detail

http://news.met.police.uk/news/state...attacks-244605

6 people dying? That's a Tuesday in America.

Not to minimize the senseless loss of any human life, but the number of people killed by Islamic terrorism is a fraction of other types of death. The largest number I could find was 28k killed by terrorism in 2015, while 88k people die each year from alcohol related deaths. And that's just in the US.

It does seem if we continued fighting terrorist groups without calling any attention to their deeds, terrorist acts would eventually become a useless tactic. Terrorism needs widespread coverage to survive. Otherwise, it's just a small war where one side kills themselves in order to kill others.

But that's never gonna happen because like it or not, people lust for blood in their news. The more gruesome and vile the better. As long as the audience is there, the media markets will cater to what brings in the ratings.

We only do in the fever dreams of our most frothed.


The same type that thinks of 9/11 as mere nuisance wants to call up the national guard if "make my tortilla *****" is uttered.

Maybe you want to try substituting bigotry for Islamophobia? Because a phobia by definition is an irrational fear. To the extent that Maher can push phobias on his audience, I'm not sure what he's being misleading about.

You seem to like demeaning people with this particular phobia and holding them in contempt. Do you also do this with those afraid of flying or open spaces? Yeah, the more I think of it, you need to either start calling Islamophobes bigots (if that's what you really mean), or stop acting like Islamophobia is anything other than an irrational fear of being killed by someone of Islamic faith.

Eh I think random mass terrorist killings especially of westerners is obviously newsworthy and I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting. That the news media not cover these events?

It's not all about blood lust, terrorist attacks in the Mideast and Africa have been in many cases more deadly and gruesome than in Europe or the US, but they hardly rate any coverage in the US media. Attacks in liberal western countries have a bigger psychological impact which makes them more newsworthy.

I suspect for a lot of these guys "ISIS" plays the same role as "defend The Constitution" does for conservative loons in the US, i.e. it's a symbolic rallying point. These guys are just random Islamists, I wouldn't be surprised if they knew ~nothing about ISIS beyond that they are badass warriors for Allah.

Heh, wrote the above before reading DVaut's post:

Ponied.

no dude. not your facts. your conclusion. that terrorist attempts are foiled and that they dont kill many ppl is indeed better than if they killed more.

I see you've updated your snarky replies from "religion of peace". What do you have in the wings when this goes stale?

I'm just pointing out that terrorism is only effective if it does in fact instill terror. And the best way to spread terror is for media heads to talk 24/7 about it after each attack.

Just my opinion, but the terrorists seem to be winning or at least gaining an edge. Remember the days of: Just go on about our lives as usual. The day we stop doing that is the day the terrorists will have won!

Well, some people really have stopped going on about their lives as usual. Some are straight up afraid to have a night out on the town because people are getting running over en masse in Europe. Parents are straight up afraid to send their teenage daughters to concerts because innocent girls died from being blown up at a teeny-bopper concert. Not everyone. Not even most or half, but some.

Never mind that all of these people were more likely to die in the car ride to these events. If people are afraid, they're afraid whether it's rational or irrational, which I don't understand people throwing around the word Islamophobia as though phobias are insults.

I suggest that we bear in mind that the Muslims are doing a number on each other, far in excess of what goes on in the West. 80 dead, hundreds injured in a Kabul truck bombing a few days ago.

I also suggest a containment thread for this and I'd really like it if whoever is modding would just delete the grossly repetitious 'religion of peace' and similar lines after the first one.

Just like with discrimination laws, something about protected classes makes the difference. Homophobia comes to mind.

Caveat: Religion is tricky. I don't personally subscribe to the idea that religion should be a protected class, immune to criticism. But there are some groups, like Muslims and Jews, where a chosen religion is nearly inseparable from an unchosen race.

Sidenote: Atheists have to put up with criticism from all the others combined, and they don't even have a belief system that interferes with peoples' lives.

This

I would agree to the extent that the vacuousness of the defenses of a demented ideology should be called into question and mocked on a regular basis, not merely after attacks.

Also, based on my interactions with the mods, a likely ground rule of the thread would be that no one is allowed to discuss the role that ideology plays in these persistent worldwide attacks.

Is this true though? How do you know this?

If the 2+2 Politics forum existed on December 8, 1941:

ok yeah 2400 people died, but Americans are still way more likely to die from cancer or a car accident than they are from a Japanese attack. Why are we even talking about this? It's just gonna stoke the flames of xenophobia.

Uh no, not remotely the same, either by number or especially by context.

People who sacrifice themselves in the name of terror are really stupid and incapable of thinking of the consequences beyond their immediate actions (same with the US president). If I were a terrorist I think I could... never mind

Fair point. I suspect these people think 'big vehicle plus big knife equals lots of dead people' without realising that narrow, congested London streets are not at all like the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, and stabbing large numbers of people is pretty much impossible because, you know, flight.

yeah, score one for gun control there

Maybe it's my mistake, but I never took homophobia seriously. I assumed it was mostly straight men being caught in the company of a gay man and being afraid that people would by association assume he was gay too. Or maybe that a gay man was looking at him with lust. When I was young I had both of these fears to some degree. It wasn't until learning that a lifelong buddy of mine was gay that my whole outlook changed. Until then I didn't personally know anyone who was gay (they didn't typically come out back then). But when my friend did, I immediately realized he was the same great guy he always was and there was nothing to be afraid of.

I could be wrong and maybe there are very real fears about gays and the lifestyle, but I don't see where any possible physical harm could come from. But I'm not a psychologist so I might be way off.

But martyrdom and 72 virgins.

Easily the dumbest post in the history of 2p2. Every sentence stunningly tops the previous one in mind-bogglingly stupid internal logic. Well played and may god have mercy on your soul.

It's true if people are afraid. I know a dude who won't play poker at a particular casino because they lack good security. Now this isn't even necessarily Islamophobia. It's just a fear of a random terrorist shooting up the place.