Normandy church attack

[Challo]

rscott said:

Challo said:

BigLion said:

Think I'm finished we these types of threads now as what more is left to discuss - I will walk away with the stat that 100,000 British Muslims support suicide bombers and 2 million British Muslims wouldn't shop someone they knew was going to fight in Syria.

Saddens me that the small minority of decent Muslims won't be able to get a fair hearing above that majority - but whatever your interpretation of Islam it looks like the majority have a different view, one that is at direct odds with all the values we hold so dear in the West.

Im trying to find the evidence you provided to back up those stats but i would say something fishy about 66% of UK Muslims not shopping someone if they went to fight in Syria.

I suspect the evidence is skewed alot, and I think you got your words wrong.

Its sad that the vast majority of Muslims wont get a fair hearing above the minority of Muslims who use Islam as a front to commit terror acts and its those who go against our values we hold so dear in the West.

The stats quoted come from a survey of just over 1,000 Muslims but only those who lived in areas which were at least 20% Muslim. That immediately excludes half the Muslims in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr... has some useful details about the poll.

Like the fact that 34% of Muslims surveyed would report someone, but only 30% of the control group (randomly selected across the country & of all or no faiths) would do so. So if you believe this survey, Muslims are more likely to report than others?

Edited to add.
The survey said 4% of Muslims surveyed are sympathetic to suicide bombing - extrapolated to 100,000 Muslims in the UK. However, 1% of the control group also had the same view - or 600,000 people in the UK. ( http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/ethnicity/2016... )

Think this, perhaps, highlights the unreliability of this small survey?

Edited by rscott on Wednesday 27th July 09:12

Edited by rscott on Wednesday 27th July 09:12

Thanks rscott.

I was thinking the stats where slightly skewed.

[AJS-]

babatunde said:

This attitude is part of the problem, this whole hands in the air... they are going to kill us all response to terrorism, it simply doesn't work, so what does work....

Well I don't know but what I do know is this. To address any problem and find a solution the first step is looking at the origins of the problem, Islam has been around for 1000's of years and we've had Muslims in Europe for pretty much all that time, why are suddenly a tiny minority of them becoming terrorists?

It's not sudden. Jihad has been a core part of Islam since day 1. It's been more or less aggressive depending on circumstances, and at the moment it appears to be getting more so.

In looking for the origins of the problem it's hard not to notice the book at the heart of the religion which is full of direct commands to kill and oppress non-Muslims.

[snorky782]

GoodOlBoy said:

I don't think it's unusual or surprising when threads about Islamic terrorism in Europe generate more discussion than unrelated incidents in Japan or the USA.

Many countries in Europe, including the UK, have large Muslim populations and have suffered Islamist Terrorist attacks.

Add to that the large number of foiled terror plots in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, the thousands of European Muslims either returning from , or trying to go to Syria, the recent mass uncontrolled Immigration into Europe. It's only to be expected that interest is high.

You've completely missed the point.

I stayed that the two shootings in Orlando generated two completely different levels of thread discussion and length. That has nothing tondo with distance or geography or anything else. It is because one had ISIS connections and the other didn't.

[Sam All]

Alpinestars said:

Oakey said:

The thread about Syria is 264 pages long, it's five years old and still on page 1. If people started a thread every single time something happened in the ME then it may as well become the Middle East sub forum.

What about Pakistan etc. Saudi? That's probably the most significant symbolic attack by IS to date.

Are you really suggesting that the more attacks there are in Europe, the less threads we will have on it, and/or dissection will be consolidated into a single thread?

You can start threads on these - have you? Or the many other supporters?

[GoodOlBoy]

snorky782 said:

You've completely missed the point.

I stayed that the two shootings in Orlando generated two completely different levels of thread discussion and length. That has nothing tondo with distance or geography or anything else. It is because one had ISIS connections and the other didn't.

Apologies.I thought you were referring to ISIS threads in general as well as the USA ones specifically. That's how I read your post.

Basically the argument still applies. Islamic or ISIS related news is going to attract more interest as it's parallels what's happening in Europe and the UK.

[ABZ RS6]

otolith said:

I'm also from the North West of England, my schoolmates were integrated back in the 80's.

Yes, there are stholes where there are problems, but the suggestion that Muslims *cannot* integrate is evident bks because often they do.

Try as I might I can't see the word "cannot" in my previous post. However, I do stand by my point that there are stloads that do not integrate nor do they appear to want to.

[Finlandia]

snorky782 said:

GoodOlBoy said:

I don't think it's unusual or surprising when threads about Islamic terrorism in Europe generate more discussion than unrelated incidents in Japan or the USA.

Many countries in Europe, including the UK, have large Muslim populations and have suffered Islamist Terrorist attacks.

Add to that the large number of foiled terror plots in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, the thousands of European Muslims either returning from , or trying to go to Syria, the recent mass uncontrolled Immigration into Europe. It's only to be expected that interest is high.

You've completely missed the point.

I stayed that the two shootings in Orlando generated two completely different levels of thread discussion and length. That has nothing tondo with distance or geography or anything else. It is because one had ISIS connections and the other didn't.

Back in the day when IRA was terrorising England, would an attack by some random chap had as much coverage as an attack by a very active terror organisation?

It's the way we are as humans, the closer to home and the closer to us the victims are, the more we care, and the more active a terror organisation is the more it gets discussed.

We would be discussing the events and attacks just as much if the attackers were bike gangs, it doesn't matter who they are, it's what they do.

[Alpinestars]

WinstonWolf said:

Alpinestars said:

WinstonWolf said:

People who believe in sky fairies fail the rationality test. I'm suspicious of anyone devout, whichever book they subscribe to.

Yep that's fair enough.

But the poll included atheists, agnostics etc. who were twice as likely as Muslims to support the killing of innocent people.

Polls, those questions that are designed to back up a particular viewpoint?

Something is very wrong in the world when you think killing for your god is the right choice, this should be challenged in all religion.

I think you're missing my point. Polls, polls, and lies. This was a retort to the guy who said it was his last post and left us with what he obviously perceives to be a very important statistic. There are always at least 2 sides to every poll. I was merely pointing that out with a poll that shows a different picture.

Don't take it too literally.

[Alpinestars]

Sam All said:

Alpinestars said:

Oakey said:

The thread about Syria is 264 pages long, it's five years old and still on page 1. If people started a thread every single time something happened in the ME then it may as well become the Middle East sub forum.

What about Pakistan etc. Saudi? That's probably the most significant symbolic attack by IS to date.

Are you really suggesting that the more attacks there are in Europe, the less threads we will have on it, and/or dissection will be consolidated into a single thread?

You can start threads on these - have you? Or the many other supporters?

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

[andymadmak]

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Why do you think they haven't?

[Digga]

andymadmak said:

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Why do you think they haven't?

I don't think this repeated line of questioning really needs oxygen now. Quite simply, it matters to those who don't happen to share the same religious or political views (in any way shape or form) to those carrying out the attacks. This also happens to be (by far) the majority view in the West and so, if we decide the deserves weighting, that's our prerogative.

[Finlandia]

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Look at my posts from 09:09 and 11:07.

[Alpinestars]

andymadmak said:

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Why do you think they haven't?

Because we all despise any attrocity commited by ISIS, regardless of who the victims are?

[Alpinestars]

Finlandia said:

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Look at my posts from 09:09 and 11:07.

Thank you and noted that they are your reasons.

[jshell]

Finlandia said:

Back in the day when IRA was terrorising England, would an attack by some random chap had as much coverage as an attack by a very active terror organisation?

Yup.

Michael Ryan v's the IRA bombings of the time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/crimes-shook-...

[andymadmak]

Alpinestars said:

andymadmak said:

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Why do you think they haven't?

Because we all despise any attrocity commited by ISIS, regardless of who the victims are?

I'm sorry. You are confusing me. I have misunderstood you I think, because I interpreted your post as suggesting that there was some unsavoury reason why ISIS related terror attacks in Europe generate more interest over (say) ISIS attacks in Syria.

[Finlandia]

jshell said:

Finlandia said:

Back in the day when IRA was terrorising England, would an attack by some random chap had as much coverage as an attack by a very active terror organisation?

Yup.

Michael Ryan v's the IRA bombings of the time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/crimes-shook-...

I give you that.

Then again a massacre of that sort would have plenty of coverage regardless, a guy walking the streets shooting at everything that moves.

Breivik had plenty more coverage in Sweden than any of the recent attacks in Europe, but they in turn have more coverage than the recent attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The closer the terror attacks happen and especially if they are orchestrated by the same organisation, the more they get covered, generally.

[Terminator X]

fatboy18 said:

SilverSpur said:

I'd just like to say a word or two of praise for the French police officers. No trials or years in cushy prison for these two fekers, straight to hell. Wished our police had done the same to Drummer Rigby's killers.

Could not agree more

I heard on R4 today that this is perhaps new policy in order to minimize loss of life when such nutters are on the loose.

TX.

[snorky782]

Finlandia said:

I give you that.

Then again a massacre of that sort would have plenty of coverage regardless, a guy walking the streets shooting at everything that moves.

Breivik had plenty more coverage in Sweden than any of the recent attacks in Europe, but they in turn have more coverage than the recent attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The closer the terror attacks happen and especially if they are orchestrated by the same organisation, the more they get covered, generally.

I keep coming back to the two separate Orlando nightclub shootings though. One had, quite rightly, massive coverage. However, the second, which was no more than an every day mass shooting in the US still got coverage on the main news bulletins, even though there were 80 recorded mass shootings between the two in Orlando and none of those made the news

[Alpinestars]

andymadmak said:

Alpinestars said:

andymadmak said:

Alpinestars said:

Supporters of?

Ostensiblly, the threads on terrorism are about innocent people being killed by ISIS, but is that really the case? If it were, the other attocities would have received as much t'internet ink as the attrocities in France and Germany. Why do you think they haven't?

Why do you think they haven't?

Because we all despise any attrocity commited by ISIS, regardless of who the victims are?

I'm sorry. You are confusing me. I have misunderstood you I think, because I interpreted your post as suggesting that there was some unsavoury reason why ISIS related terror attacks in Europe generate more interest over (say) ISIS attacks in Syria.

Sorry, I was being facetious.