Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
I'd be inclined to argue that a violent extremist ideology (of any type) will seek, at least in part, to secure its own position within the hearts and minds (neither of which operate terribly effectively) of its adherents.
They want to be able to point to a state apparatus that overreacts and engages in punitive and discriminatory actions against whole groups of people in response to outrages. They dream of having the electorate respond by electing totally unsuitable leaders, who lack either the intelligence or the humanity to avoid falling into the trap if authorising restrictive, even repressive, practices by the authorities. Then they can point to this situation and say: "See, we were right all along, they will never accept us as equals, and we are justified in our terror".
It is calculating and deliberate, and a common feature across terrorist movements (or those that would have been called that) through the centuries.
Falling into the trap is not big, and it's not clever, but happens more often than we'd care to admit.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Except that he's actually right.
Is he, now?
Yep
Thank you for your contribution.
You're welcome. Talking now about a second who may have come by train from Belgium, the European hub of these nutters. You're average bloke doesn't jump out of a car and start firing at officers. We don't need Poirot to work this one out.
Who is "talking now"? Some bloke on your Twitter feed?
Did you also assume the Dortmund attack was the work of the same mob? (pointless asking I guess, as i could not prove your denial)
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Except that he's actually right.
Is he, now?
Yep
Thank you for your contribution.
You're welcome. Talking now about a second who may have come by train from Belgium, the European hub of these nutters. You're average bloke doesn't jump out of a car and start firing at officers. We don't need Poirot to work this one out.
Who is "talking now"? Some bloke on your Twitter feed?
Did you also assume the Dortmund attack was the work of the same mob? (pointless asking I guess, as i could not prove your denial)
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Here we go, why is he a wanker the. Prague? Can't see anything he's said there to be wrong or untrue.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Except that he's actually right.
Is he, now?
Yep
Thank you for your contribution.
You're welcome. Talking now about a second who may have come by train from Belgium, the European hub of these nutters. You're average bloke doesn't jump out of a car and start firing at officers. We don't need Poirot to work this one out.
Who is "talking now"? Some bloke on your Twitter feed?
Did you also assume the Dortmund attack was the work of the same mob? (pointless asking I guess, as i could not prove your denial)
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Islamist if you must but perhaps talk in terms of Daesh inspired. I would of thought it obvious that the interests of the Muslims are not the primary concern of Daesh. The attempt to fill the void left by sectarian conflict in Iraq has failed and the proxy Saudi/Iranian war in Syria and Yemen has drawn in Putin and now Trump. Daesh attempts to relocate to Afghanistan have mired in the maze of clan and ethnic conflicts. Deobandi militants in Pakistan are courted by both AQ and Daesh. As in all conflicts the end goal is power not faith. Attacks, backlash, reciprocal radicalisation and more attacks serve to enhance the status of one or other factions in the battle for supremacy of the militant brands. Muslims die at the hands of one or other group everyday mostly without comment. But then not much comment is made if the Russian metro is bombed or an airliner downed in comparison to attacks closer to home. Understandable but not consistent. In general terms the harsher the words, the greater the backlash the easier the recruiting process.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Here we go, why is he a wanker the. Prague? Can't see anything he's said there to be wrong or untrue.
Already answered above. Night all. RIP to the policeman.
The plan will also fail because it's no longer just Al Qaeda, the violent fanatics have split into many different factions and lone individuals, AQ's control of events was never particularly strong, it was all about ideology.
And, while the Syrian regime are undoubtedly nasty bastards, they are undermining that particular part of the plan.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
1. "The Awakening." This phase was supposed to last from 2001 to 2003. The goal of the phase is to provoke the United States to attack a Muslim country by executing an attack on US soil that kills many civilians. 2. "Opening Eyes." This phase was supposed to last from 2003 to 2006. The goal of this phase was to recruit young men to the cause and to transform the al-Qaeda group into a movement. Iraq was supposed to become the center of all operations with financial and military support for bases in other states. 3. "Arising and Standing up", was supposed to last from 2007 to 2010. In this phase, al-Qaeda wanted to execute additional attacks and focus their attention on Syria. Hussein believed that other countries in the Arabian Peninsula were also in danger. 4. Al-Qaeda expected a steady growth among their ranks and territories due to the declining power of the regimes in the Arabian Peninsula. The main focus of attack in this phase was supposed to be on oil suppliers and Cyberterrorism, targeting the US economy and military infrastructure. 5. The declaration of an Islamic Caliphate, which was projected between 2013 and 2016. In this phase, al-Qaeda expected the resistance from Israel to be heavily reduced. 6.The declaration of an "Islamic Army" and a "fight between believers and non-believers", also called "total confrontation". 7. "Definitive Victory", projected to be completed by 2020. The world will be "beaten down" by the Islamic Army.
Could argue that we're between steps 5&6. So far, their plan has more or less worked.
Note to self: never go for a beer with Callum. Flipping cheery sod.
So sad. These sort of attacks are so ridiculously common in European cities now it just does not surprise you. As soon as I go onto twitter and see Paris trending you think the worst and 9/10 you are usually right. I know this is no new revelation but the problem in Europe with Islamic terrorism is so serious that I do really worry for the future of the continent.
RIP to the policeman and thoughts with all injured.
RIP to the policeman. Also RIP to the many people who died in car accidents today. Or as a result of cancer or other terrible illness. I do not wish to lessen the event at all but the terrorists win if we live in fear.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
1. "The Awakening." This phase was supposed to last from 2001 to 2003. The goal of the phase is to provoke the United States to attack a Muslim country by executing an attack on US soil that kills many civilians. 2. "Opening Eyes." This phase was supposed to last from 2003 to 2006. The goal of this phase was to recruit young men to the cause and to transform the al-Qaeda group into a movement. Iraq was supposed to become the center of all operations with financial and military support for bases in other states. 3. "Arising and Standing up", was supposed to last from 2007 to 2010. In this phase, al-Qaeda wanted to execute additional attacks and focus their attention on Syria. Hussein believed that other countries in the Arabian Peninsula were also in danger. 4. Al-Qaeda expected a steady growth among their ranks and territories due to the declining power of the regimes in the Arabian Peninsula. The main focus of attack in this phase was supposed to be on oil suppliers and Cyberterrorism, targeting the US economy and military infrastructure. 5. The declaration of an Islamic Caliphate, which was projected between 2013 and 2016. In this phase, al-Qaeda expected the resistance from Israel to be heavily reduced. 6.The declaration of an "Islamic Army" and a "fight between believers and non-believers", also called "total confrontation". 7. "Definitive Victory", projected to be completed by 2020. The world will be "beaten down" by the Islamic Army.
Could argue that we're between steps 5&6. So far, their plan has more or less worked.
Note to self: never go for a beer with Callum. Flipping cheery sod.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
FFS - How does giving an election boost to an anti-Islam candidate boost Islamists? Really?
It doesn't take much brainpower to see how a group that preys upon vulnerable Muslims may find it easy to exploit an administration that openly dislikes them.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
Yes, what a wanker.. wishing his condolences and saying it's a "terrible thing". Noting that terrorist attacks seem to be relentless and they "never end".
Seriously, I've spoken about my dislike for the man quite a lot - but I'm confused as to how you've managed to find anything wrong whatsoever with his response there.
He's wished his condolences. He's mentioned how it's happening again. He's called it a terrible thing.
I can only presume its because he issued that statement before all the facts came out - in which case do you seriously not expect the POTUS to have access to a clearer picture than the BBC and Sky? Even if he didn't, a foiled election plot already and a city wide manhunt (at that time) suggested more than gang crime anyway; it didn't take a genius.
RIP to the policeman. Also RIP to the many people who died in car accidents today. Or as a result of cancer or other terrible illness. I do not wish to lessen the event at all but the terrorists win if we live in fear.
Interesting point, but it doesn't really hold water does it?
If it's the equivalent to a car accident or cancer, then why did Charlton treat the death of PC Keith Palmer so differently? He was, after all, a police officer who was killed by an Islamist whilst doing his duty right?
Charlton must lose fans due to horrible circumstances such as cancer or car accidents on a monthly - if not weekly - basis. So what made that case any different?
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
I'm afraid i don't follow Prague?
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I kind of expect the POTUS to show both more self-restraint and evidence of access to more than Fox News, before opening his gob and sounding no more intelligent nor well informed than anyone else on this thread.
Like Prague, you know I have a great deal of respect for you too SDAddick, but that's not really fair is it?
How was his statement a "dog whistle" back to his proposed policies? He literally offered his condolences, and didn't add much more substance other than that.
For what I expected from Trump, today he's been surprisingly measured.
It's 0430 and I've just got in from an evening out, part of which was spent keeping an eye on this as it unfolded. I must say, some of the comments are absolutely atrocious on here.
There is a real problem at the moment, a problem that can be evidenced by the ridiculous rate in which we get through pointless hashtags and other gimmicky social media trends; are we doing French flag Facebook profile pics again yet?
After every single attack theres the same predictable response: one side sit behind their keyboards hoping its a Muslim with a beard, whilst the other side hopes it's a pissed off white guy.
They're both as bad as eachother and should both be ashamed of themselves.
The inconvenient truth is that the majority of these attacks rely upon Islam as a vector for radicalisation and facilitation. Yes there are far right nutters too - i.e Sons of Odin - but in the post 9/11 world have they truly been responsible for the same level of savagery and bloodshed? I don't think so. Worryingly, do I think such attacks will increase in correlation to Islamist violence? Without a doubt.
Similarly, today there's been another death of a police officer. Someone who went to work today - expecting to see his family after his shift - and was brutally killed for nothing other than doing their job.
Oh how quick some were to forget our MK Dons match. How we forget the way we dealt with losing one of our own in identical circumstances.
Nope. It wasn't even possible to put aside the politics of a man at a distance of thousands of miles. In contrast to how we viewed the man we lost ourself - complete with white seat and memorial - we're told to remember that people die everyday from Cancer and Car Crashes.
I'll run with that analogy. Nothing was ever defeated by ignoring it.
Cancer has many research laboratories working around the clock to defeat it - because we acknowledge it's a horrible way to die.
Since cars have been on the road we've invented numerous devices and safety checks to prevent the loss of life. Seat belts, airbags, speed limits, driving tests.. I could go on.
Nobody loses a loved one from cancer or a car crash just to be told "meh, he could've got hit by lightening, it's sad but it happens". So why are people condoning such an attitude to these deaths?
I've spoken before about how I've fought in the workplace for prayer spaces, I've fought for flexible working during Ramadan, and I've even tried to change the office culture of "desk beers". I'm no bigot, and I'm no Islamophobe. Yet it's clear for even the most myopic of people: there is a problem, and that problem is rooted in Islam.
The same people who refuse to acknowledge that are those who shout about equality and ending human suffering - yet I saw noone talking about the suffering of Dina Ali, I see no one talking about gay rights in Cechnya, and I see no one confronting the domestic violence in our Pakistani community.
These are just three examples where aspects of Islam are incompatible with our western way of life. I can count two people that I've nearly lost personally to the intolerance of Islam, yet I will still defend the average Muslim as they are good people like you or I.
On the other hand, I will not deny that certain beliefs are not compatible with our own, nor will I deny that those particular beliefs are being weaponised amongst the vulnerable.
RIP to the policeman. Also RIP to the many people who died in car accidents today. Or as a result of cancer or other terrible illness. I do not wish to lessen the event at all but the terrorists win if we live in fear.
Interesting point, but it doesn't really hold water does it?
If it's the equivalent to a car accident or cancer, then why did Charlton treat the death of PC Keith Palmer so differently? He was, after all, a police officer who was killed by an Islamist whilst doing his duty right?
Charlton must lose fans due to horrible circumstances such as cancer or car accidents on a monthly - if not weekly - basis. So what made that case any different?
This is a very good question. Numerically deaths from terrorism and even from all current conflicts are dwarfed by other causes of death. So for example globally 500k annually will be murdered in other forms of homicide mostly by people known to them. A million plus will die on the roads and around 50 million injured. In terms of the value of a life a Brit is about half the value of an American in terms of compensation for an air accident and a Chinese citizens about half of a Brit. A Bengali farmer should he ever get in the air very little at all. US blood money in Afghanistan is about $50k per life. ౩ million children will die every year for the want of clean water and adequate nutrition. Globally violence doesn't come anywhere near the top for the 50 odd million deaths annually. 15 million from heart disease and strokes every year. So to return to your question, nobody here would deny the significance of PC Palmer's death nor his heroism. In general terms though the heat and emotion generated by conflict and terrorism related deaths is statistically out of all proportion to their actual numbers,why we give so much attention to some deaths rather than others?
It's 0430 and I've just got in from an evening out, part of which was spent keeping an eye on this as it unfolded. I must say, some of the comments are absolutely atrocious on here.
There is a real problem at the moment, a problem that can be evidenced by the ridiculous rate in which we get through pointless hashtags and other gimmicky social media trends; are we doing French flag Facebook profile pics again yet?
After every single attack theres the same predictable response: one side sit behind their keyboards hoping its a Muslim with a beard, whilst the other side hopes it's a pissed off white guy.
They're both as bad as eachother and should both be ashamed of themselves.
The inconvenient truth is that the majority of these attacks rely upon Islam as a vector for radicalisation and facilitation. Yes there are far right nutters too - i.e Sons of Odin - but in the post 9/11 world have they truly been responsible for the same level of savagery and bloodshed? I don't think so. Worryingly, do I think such attacks will increase in correlation to Islamist violence? Without a doubt.
Similarly, today there's been another death of a police officer. Someone who went to work today - expecting to see his family after his shift - and was brutally killed for nothing other than doing their job.
Oh how quick some were to forget our MK Dons match. How we forget the way we dealt with losing one of our own in identical circumstances.
Nope. It wasn't even possible to put aside the politics of a man at a distance of thousands of miles. In contrast to how we viewed the man we lost ourself - complete with white seat and memorial - we're told to remember that people die everyday from Cancer and Car Crashes.
I'll run with that analogy. Nothing was ever defeated by ignoring it.
Cancer has many research laboratories working around the clock to defeat it - because we acknowledge it's a horrible way to die.
Since cars have been on the road we've invented numerous devices and safety checks to prevent the loss of life. Seat belts, airbags, speed limits, driving tests.. I could go on.
Nobody loses a loved one from cancer or a car crash just to be told "meh, he could've got hit by lightening, it's sad but it happens". So why are people condoning such an attitude to these deaths?
I've spoken before about how I've fought in the workplace for prayer spaces, I've fought for flexible working during Ramadan, and I've even tried to change the office culture of "desk beers". I'm no bigot, and I'm no Islamophobe. Yet it's clear for even the most myopic of people: there is a problem, and that problem is rooted in Islam.
The same people who refuse to acknowledge that are those who shout about equality and ending human suffering - yet I saw noone talking about the suffering of Dina Ali, I see no one talking about gay rights in Cechnya, and I see no one confronting the domestic violence in our Pakistani community.
These are just three examples where aspects of Islam are incompatible with our western way of life. I can count two people that I've nearly lost personally to the intolerance of Islam, yet I will still defend the average Muslim as they are good people like you or I.
On the other hand, I will not deny that certain beliefs are not compatible with our own, nor will I deny that those particular beliefs are being weaponised amongst the vulnerable.
OK then, you say this, assuming this will be a pronounced a 'terrorist" attack, despite the backtracking over the Dortmund attack. But assuming you are right, what is the strategy here? Of course it is a bit much to ask normal people to put themselves inside the heads of fanatics, but
An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen, who is anti-Muslim. What goal does that achieve, from the point of view of the Islamic terrorist?
Perhaps naive of me but perhaps they don't care. Gives them more fuel for the jihad against the infidels as Le Pen marginalises them more.
OK, but how do you get closer to a French Caliphate by voting in a politician with a mandate to take the strongest possible authoritarian steps to prevent that?
Hence my naivety @PragueAddick - but I am guessing these fools are using that idea to go out and legitimise their brand of mayhem. Whether it creates a caliphate or not is not their first remit.
It's 0430 and I've just got in from an evening out, part of which was spent keeping an eye on this as it unfolded. I must say, some of the comments are absolutely atrocious on here.
There is a real problem at the moment, a problem that can be evidenced by the ridiculous rate in which we get through pointless hashtags and other gimmicky social media trends; are we doing French flag Facebook profile pics again yet?
After every single attack theres the same predictable response: one side sit behind their keyboards hoping its a Muslim with a beard, whilst the other side hopes it's a pissed off white guy.
They're both as bad as eachother and should both be ashamed of themselves.
The inconvenient truth is that the majority of these attacks rely upon Islam as a vector for radicalisation and facilitation. Yes there are far right nutters too - i.e Sons of Odin - but in the post 9/11 world have they truly been responsible for the same level of savagery and bloodshed? I don't think so. Worryingly, do I think such attacks will increase in correlation to Islamist violence? Without a doubt.
Similarly, today there's been another death of a police officer. Someone who went to work today - expecting to see his family after his shift - and was brutally killed for nothing other than doing their job.
Oh how quick some were to forget our MK Dons match. How we forget the way we dealt with losing one of our own in identical circumstances.
Nope. It wasn't even possible to put aside the politics of a man at a distance of thousands of miles. In contrast to how we viewed the man we lost ourself - complete with white seat and memorial - we're told to remember that people die everyday from Cancer and Car Crashes.
I'll run with that analogy. Nothing was ever defeated by ignoring it.
Cancer has many research laboratories working around the clock to defeat it - because we acknowledge it's a horrible way to die.
Since cars have been on the road we've invented numerous devices and safety checks to prevent the loss of life. Seat belts, airbags, speed limits, driving tests.. I could go on.
Nobody loses a loved one from cancer or a car crash just to be told "meh, he could've got hit by lightening, it's sad but it happens". So why are people condoning such an attitude to these deaths?
I've spoken before about how I've fought in the workplace for prayer spaces, I've fought for flexible working during Ramadan, and I've even tried to change the office culture of "desk beers". I'm no bigot, and I'm no Islamophobe. Yet it's clear for even the most myopic of people: there is a problem, and that problem is rooted in Islam.
The same people who refuse to acknowledge that are those who shout about equality and ending human suffering - yet I saw noone talking about the suffering of Dina Ali, I see no one talking about gay rights in Cechnya, and I see no one confronting the domestic violence in our Pakistani community.
These are just three examples where aspects of Islam are incompatible with our western way of life. I can count two people that I've nearly lost personally to the intolerance of Islam, yet I will still defend the average Muslim as they are good people like you or I.
On the other hand, I will not deny that certain beliefs are not compatible with our own, nor will I deny that those particular beliefs are being weaponised amongst the vulnerable.
Excellent post.
I have a predictable response to every report of an attack, I just hope it isn't terrorism, and try to avoid making assumptions until the authorities can provide more detail.
Not that the reason for people being maimed or killed, whether terrorism, "normal" gun crime, or a black out/heart attack at the wheel, will make the slightest bit of difference to the victims.
My fear is that too many of us will come to see Islam as some sort of monolithic entity, and fail to differentiate between those that seek to achieve their own personal politico-religious aims by violence and those who don't.
As an aside, there is a very interesting radio series on World Service called Islam, People and Power: bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04fsh71.
Comments
They want to be able to point to a state apparatus that overreacts and engages in punitive and discriminatory actions against whole groups of people in response to outrages. They dream of having the electorate respond by electing totally unsuitable leaders, who lack either the intelligence or the humanity to avoid falling into the trap if authorising restrictive, even repressive, practices by the authorities. Then they can point to this situation and say: "See, we were right all along, they will never accept us as equals, and we are justified in our terror".
It is calculating and deliberate, and a common feature across terrorist movements (or those that would have been called that) through the centuries.
Falling into the trap is not big, and it's not clever, but happens more often than we'd care to admit.
Did you also assume the Dortmund attack was the work of the same mob? (pointless asking I guess, as i could not prove your denial)
The issue with his original statement is it's a dog whistle back to the things he's said about previous attacks and the bigoted measures he believes we need to "keep America safe." This included an outright ban of Muslims entering the US when an American attacked people in San Bernardino. And his calls for a "Muslim Registry" after attacks in Berlin and Turkey
Sure it wasn't RT?
Daesh attempts to relocate to Afghanistan have mired in the maze of clan and ethnic conflicts. Deobandi militants in Pakistan are courted by both AQ and Daesh.
As in all conflicts the end goal is power not faith. Attacks, backlash, reciprocal radicalisation and more attacks serve to enhance the status of one or other factions in the battle for supremacy of the militant brands. Muslims die at the hands of one or other group everyday mostly without comment. But then not much comment is made if the Russian metro is bombed or an airliner downed in comparison to attacks closer to home. Understandable but not consistent.
In general terms the harsher the words, the greater the backlash the easier the recruiting process.
Already answered above. Night all. RIP to the policeman.
And, while the Syrian regime are undoubtedly nasty bastards, they are undermining that particular part of the plan.
Note to self: never go for a beer with Callum. Flipping cheery sod.
RIP to the policeman and thoughts with all injured.
What exactly has wound you up with this statement?
Anyhow, too many innocent people are being killed in Europe, no matter who is responsible.
RIP the dead
It doesn't take much brainpower to see how a group that preys upon vulnerable Muslims may find it easy to exploit an administration that openly dislikes them.
Seriously, I've spoken about my dislike for the man quite a lot - but I'm confused as to how you've managed to find anything wrong whatsoever with his response there.
He's wished his condolences. He's mentioned how it's happening again. He's called it a terrible thing.
I can only presume its because he issued that statement before all the facts came out - in which case do you seriously not expect the POTUS to have access to a clearer picture than the BBC and Sky? Even if he didn't, a foiled election plot already and a city wide manhunt (at that time) suggested more than gang crime anyway; it didn't take a genius.
If it's the equivalent to a car accident or cancer, then why did Charlton treat the death of PC Keith Palmer so differently? He was, after all, a police officer who was killed by an Islamist whilst doing his duty right?
Charlton must lose fans due to horrible circumstances such as cancer or car accidents on a monthly - if not weekly - basis. So what made that case any different?
How was his statement a "dog whistle" back to his proposed policies? He literally offered his condolences, and didn't add much more substance other than that.
For what I expected from Trump, today he's been surprisingly measured.
It's 0430 and I've just got in from an evening out, part of which was spent keeping an eye on this as it unfolded. I must say, some of the comments are absolutely atrocious on here.
There is a real problem at the moment, a problem that can be evidenced by the ridiculous rate in which we get through pointless hashtags and other gimmicky social media trends; are we doing French flag Facebook profile pics again yet?
After every single attack theres the same predictable response: one side sit behind their keyboards hoping its a Muslim with a beard, whilst the other side hopes it's a pissed off white guy.
They're both as bad as eachother and should both be ashamed of themselves.
The inconvenient truth is that the majority of these attacks rely upon Islam as a vector for radicalisation and facilitation. Yes there are far right nutters too - i.e Sons of Odin - but in the post 9/11 world have they truly been responsible for the same level of savagery and bloodshed? I don't think so. Worryingly, do I think such attacks will increase in correlation to Islamist violence? Without a doubt.
Similarly, today there's been another death of a police officer. Someone who went to work today - expecting to see his family after his shift - and was brutally killed for nothing other than doing their job.
Oh how quick some were to forget our MK Dons match. How we forget the way we dealt with losing one of our own in identical circumstances.
Nope. It wasn't even possible to put aside the politics of a man at a distance of thousands of miles. In contrast to how we viewed the man we lost ourself - complete with white seat and memorial - we're told to remember that people die everyday from Cancer and Car Crashes.
I'll run with that analogy. Nothing was ever defeated by ignoring it.
Cancer has many research laboratories working around the clock to defeat it - because we acknowledge it's a horrible way to die.
Since cars have been on the road we've invented numerous devices and safety checks to prevent the loss of life. Seat belts, airbags, speed limits, driving tests.. I could go on.
Nobody loses a loved one from cancer or a car crash just to be told "meh, he could've got hit by lightening, it's sad but it happens". So why are people condoning such an attitude to these deaths?
I've spoken before about how I've fought in the workplace for prayer spaces, I've fought for flexible working during Ramadan, and I've even tried to change the office culture of "desk beers". I'm no bigot, and I'm no Islamophobe. Yet it's clear for even the most myopic of people: there is a problem, and that problem is rooted in Islam.
The same people who refuse to acknowledge that are those who shout about equality and ending human suffering - yet I saw noone talking about the suffering of Dina Ali, I see no one talking about gay rights in Cechnya, and I see no one confronting the domestic violence in our Pakistani community.
These are just three examples where aspects of Islam are incompatible with our western way of life. I can count two people that I've nearly lost personally to the intolerance of Islam, yet I will still defend the average Muslim as they are good people like you or I.
On the other hand, I will not deny that certain beliefs are not compatible with our own, nor will I deny that those particular beliefs are being weaponised amongst the vulnerable.
In terms of the value of a life a Brit is about half the value of an American in terms of compensation for an air accident and a Chinese citizens about half of a Brit. A Bengali farmer should he ever get in the air very little at all. US blood money in Afghanistan is about $50k per life.
౩ million children will die every year for the want of clean water and adequate nutrition.
Globally violence doesn't come anywhere near the top for the 50 odd million deaths annually. 15 million from heart disease and strokes every year.
So to return to your question, nobody here would deny the significance of PC Palmer's death nor his heroism.
In general terms though the heat and emotion generated by conflict and terrorism related deaths is statistically out of all proportion to their actual numbers,why we give so much attention to some deaths rather than others?
RIP to the victim
I have a predictable response to every report of an attack, I just hope it isn't terrorism, and try to avoid making assumptions until the authorities can provide more detail.
Not that the reason for people being maimed or killed, whether terrorism, "normal" gun crime, or a black out/heart attack at the wheel, will make the slightest bit of difference to the victims.
My fear is that too many of us will come to see Islam as some sort of monolithic entity, and fail to differentiate between those that seek to achieve their own personal politico-religious aims by violence and those who don't.
As an aside, there is a very interesting radio series on World Service called Islam, People and Power: bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04fsh71.