Another witness, who gave his name as Abdul, told the BBC the arrested man was shouting "kill me, I've done my job".
[Communities Secretary Sajid] said he wanted to reassure Muslims around the UK that the government would "always take a zero tolerance approach to hate crime".
Eyewitness Adil Rana, 24, said the suspected attacker was pinned to the floor by members of the public "and people were punching him and beating him, which was reasonable because of what he's done. And then the imam of the mosque actually came out and said: 'Don't hit him, hand him over to the police, pin him down'."
१९ जून, २०१७
"When the guy came out from his van he wanted to escape, run away and he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. I want to kill Muslims.'"
"I hit him on his stomach... and then me and the other guys... we held him to the ground until he couldn't move. We stopped him until the police came."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५५ टिप्पण्या:
255 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Relax. It's just part and parcel of living in s big city. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And, in Sterling, Northern Virgina, "Muslim girl, 17, killed on way home from Virginia mosque". Police have charged 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres with her murder.
Trump opened the gates to legitimize hate and this is what happens and will continue to happen. Reminds you of lynchings of black people just a few generations ago - the Trumpski's of yesteryear.
Maybe muslims will have something to say about a principle, or maybe it's a specific thing, no mowing down muslims.
There's a silence thing to be investigated.
One thing about unwritten deals is both sides come out ahead obeying them. Maybe that will be noticed.
The emotional side of me says, "F'ng a right!"
The logical side of me says, "This does not help."
Also, I don't think anyone will top Jason. That's a pretty epic burn.
Calm down everybody, it was just a lone wolf. Nothing to see here.
Prayers for those lost and injured and their loved ones. We'll know all about the murderer soon enough.
To paraphrase the thoughts of the estimable Wretchard,
The world is new whether you like it or not. It's been new before. The Greatest Generation dealt with a world that was ending and so earned their fame. What we will be called is up to us. The most common line in 1940s movies was probably "this is it". This probably translates to today's "I can't believe this is happening."
Thank God we have Muslims to show us the proper way to respond to this type of atrocity. It must be noted, however, that they have more practice.
Will this get the "Still the safest city in the world" response from the mayor?
Blogger Unknown said...
Trump opened the gates to legitimize hate and this is what happens and will continue to happen. Reminds you of lynchings of black people just a few generations ago - the Trumpski's of yesteryear.
6/19/17, 5:48 AM
Yes, before Trump, all the peoples of the earth were as one, living lives of serenity and grace. Until HE appeared. Now, hate, previously held in check by One Love posters, coffee cup slogans, and sentimental likes and shares, is legitimized. It is always a short walk to the gulag, the killing fields, and the camps. I am sure you will be there to do your part. Or, you could show your post, as written, to a mental health professional. The hope of redemption stands ever against the darkness of the human soul.
Much rarer than slipping and falling in a bathtub.
"Trump opened the doors to legitimate hate"
How?
By claiming that we need to ban travel from nations that enable jihadists until we can get better screening procedures in place?
The problem with Manchester - the reason so many Jihadi attacks are found to be "known threats" - is because Britain has imported so many Jihadis that it's security services lack the manpower to keep an eye on them. One agent recently reported that they could only servaile a "Mohammed Atta" 24-36 hrs per week.
Your kind of dishonesty is what sets the comments section on fire. Please take your hatemongering of Trump somewhere else.
Where are the backlash feared stories.
They call it Islamaphobia in the news reports, but it is no longer a fear. It is hate. It is hatred for a belief system that blesses those who kill non-Muslims, gays, and mutilates females.
Atheists may hate Christian beliefs and vice versa, but neither walk around spouting Atheistaphobia or Christianaphobia. That is because neither fear the other side is out to kill them for their beliefs.
For sure, this type of revenge attack is the wrong. But it is easy to understand without blaming Trump.
Dear Unknown-14 with the hidden profile, nobody can stop you spewing your garbage, but may I merely make the observation that "Trumpski's," as you incessantly use it, is not Grammar. It's Trumpskis; the plural of Trumpski is Trumpskis.
Since you are presenting yourself as better than others, you should avoid making and repeating such a blatant error. It lessens you in the eyes of others who might otherwise be swayed by your rhetoric.
I'll be curious to see if the perp was a nutcase or was radicalized by all the recent Jihadi attacks. Britain has gone out of its way not to blame Islam for the Jihad, to the extent that in the middle of a terrorist attack, one victim was heard to chastise another for saying "damn Muslims" as they were doing the duck and cover.
The problem with stifling anger over Jihadi attacks is that you are simply letting water build up behind a damn. When it inevitably breaks, their will be Nights of Broken Glass. Gangs invading Muslim corridors with bats and Molotov cocktails.
Might be better to let the rage flow as a natural stream, because you can't damn up a million metric tons of anger forever. And when it eventually breaks through....
They may want to review what zero is.
Looks like they might have gotten the backlash they've always predicted. They were bound to be right eventually.
I too fail to see where Trump has anything to do with this. The prediction that there would be a backlash has been made after every line wolf attack since long before he was in the political scene.
So far they have been false flags but this may be real. Its early though so who knows.
Manage the rage as a stream, don't try to hold it back with a damn.
I think that we are going to see more of this - terrorist acts to counter terrorist acts. Right now, Muslims in the western non-Muslim world have the benefits of both. They are having their cake and eating it too. They quietly sit on the sidelines, quietly giving encouragement to their more violent brethren, who are turning the countries they have invaded through immigration more and more Muslim friendly. Indeed, there are now "no go" zones in larger cities in much of Western Europe that are, essentially now part of the Muslim world. Up until now, the more peaceful Muslims haven't paid a price for tacitly, and maybe even a bit more actively, supporting the terrorists in their midsts. This is the only real solution that I see to their "Muslim problem" - tit for tat, eye for eye. Etc. Make the cost of sitting on the sidelines, and quietly benefitting from Muzzie terrorism, personally higher. And do this by realistically threatening their wives and children the same way that they do those of their quasi-Christian hosts. We need the peaceful Muslim majority to turn their violent. jihadists out, and being nice to them hasn't worked. Scaring them, like their violent elements do us, may be the only way to teach them tolerance.
Susan, lol we are both skeptics. So cynical these days but who can blame us? My first thought was also false flag, but like you, I'm afraid this may be the real thing.
It's funny, all the doom and gloom over the scuttled Paris Accord. Whether the EU meets its CO2 marks is moot - they aren't going to be around long enough to matter.
Pity about the Mona Lisa though. So much Western culture to be thrown into the fire. We need to crowd source and effort to airlift all the gingers out of Ireland though. Some things are just too precious to discard. Limited seats though, so females only ;)
Newton's Third Law of Motion comes to mind: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." A crazy responding crazies. Sad and mad, but not unxpected.
Although I could be wrong, this has the stench of fake news/false flag.
Though though though. Geez Fen, get some coffee.
And Bruce, you said no-go zone. MiniTru NonPlace. Please report yourself to the nearest Indoctrination Center.
Interesting that Althouse frames this as muslims attacking someone, rather than as muslims being killed in a terrorist attack.
From one of our regular posters a couple weeks ago: How to deal with Muslim terrorism in the West..
The Center for Security Policy released a poll Tuesday that should give all Americans pause. The results show that a startling number of American Muslims, our fellow citizens, agree that violence is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam. A full majority of 51% “agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%). …
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
...
Sherman and Sheridan suppressed sniping at Union soldiers by Confederate civilians by burning the towns (just the towns, not the townsfolk) that sheltered them. In other words, they forced collective responsibility upon a hostile population, a doctrine that in peacetime is entirely repugnant, but that in wartime becomes unavoidable.
Wait 'till people get tired of the Left's shit.
Mossador: "This will make the snakes angry"
Daneris: "Good. Angry snakes lash out from hiding and can be more easily killed"
We are about to find out just how moderate the moderate Muslim majority is. Will be enlightening. Up till now, Brits have absorbed multiple attacks without retaliating violently. Will Muslims abide by the same standard?
And has the British role modelling of manners and tone changed the behavior of the radical muslims? (see what I did there)
Relax. This was just a 'lone wolf' acting alone.
Nothing here that a candle light vigil, and lots and lots of sobbing, twattering liberals can't fix! Remember the teddy bears everyone!
ARM: Interesting that Althouse frames this as muslims attacking someone, rather than as muslims being killed in a terrorist attack.
Odd how you frame self-defense against a murderer as "attacking someone".
None of the Althouse hillbillies would describe the situation in that way, so what's interesting is that Althouse has excerpted the parts that will make Muslims look good to us hillbillies. (That you're straining the limits of sophistry to describe it that way, on the other hand, isn't interesting.)
ARM: "Interesting that Althouse frames this as Muslims attacking-"
Not as interesting as the fact that this is your first reaction to the attack, mmmm?
Jacquen H'Gar: "After everything a girl has seen, this is her question?"
Motivation unknown.
Sock Puppets Activate!
Form of... a weasel
Shape of... cold water
Angel-Dyne said...
Odd how you frame self-defense against a murderer as "attacking someone".
Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?
"Darwin Martinez Torres" from a city that is 33% Hispanic and 34% foreign born. You are going with Trump supporter for this one?
Since MS-13 gang members from Sterling, VA have been involved with killings like this in the past, I'd lean that way first.
ARM responded: "Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?"
I would be interested in how you know the perp is a Christian.
"Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?
No, that would be highly dishonest (par for the course with you) since we have no proof this man is, in fact, Christian. He could be as pagan as you. That is more likely, since most Brits are only nominally Christian these days. And there are no Christian ministers or priests out there telling believers it is OK to go out and target nonbelievers.
Can someone please ask Obama if the mosque can absorb the attack?
And if not, why.
"Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?"
Quick, label the guy in a way that makes liberals feel he's not one of them!
exiledonmainstreet said...
most Brits are only nominally Christian these days.
This seems a weak argument given that many of the muslim terrorists also appear to be only nominally muslim.
Hopefully they will treat him exactly the same as they treat every terrorist. I am undecided on how much effort we should put into protesting whitepeopleophobia.
"This seems a weak argument given that many of the muslim terrorists also appear to be only nominally muslim."
Most of them yell Allahu Akbar while killing. Did this guy get out of the van and praise Jesus?
ARM: Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?
What, did I miss that the murderer was crying out "Deus vult!" or something as he attacked?
"Straightforward framing".
Lol.
I keep telling you ARM, your fans look away in embarassment at the Inga-level sophistry (if it even qualifies as sophistry) you've been allowing yourself to sink to lately.
This seems a weak argument given that many of the muslim terrorists also appear to be only nominally muslim.
No true Scotsmen involved.
Kevin, only if he is motivated by Christianity. Do you have any reason to believe he is?
ARM, you have outdone yourself with this bit of fact-free obtuseness.
What fresh hell is this as I awake to another 2017 week?
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that just maybe this incident involved someone who had a loved one/relative/friend killed or maimed by a previous muslim terrorist act?
If you think it's hard trying to find a few lone wolf terrorists in the haystack of Muslims, just wait until they have to find a few hiding in the great masses of flyover folk.
I am not going to read this thread but I am willing to bet that the same characters who deny that the drumbeat of hate against Republicans had anything to do with Scalise are blaming an anti-Muslim atmosphere for this.
I believe Neil Armstrong said it best: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Isn't this the time me to demand that England import a few million more Christians if ARM is right?
--Vance
"Kevin, only if he is motivated by Christianity."
That was my point. ARM's labeling of him was done without evidence Christianity played any role.
Earnest: "What fresh hell- "
I dunno, but a part of me is giddy with anticipation of you and I being in "violent agreement" for a 3rd time straight. Not sure what that really means but it sounds kinda sexy :)
I think I understand ARM's argument. If you're white, not a liberal, and mow down Muslims, you're a Christian.
"This seems a weak argument given that many of the muslim terrorists also appear to be only nominally muslim."
Really? By whose standards? Yours? They themselves certainly believe themselves to be acting in accord with the dictates of Islam.
virgil xenophon said...
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that just maybe this incident involved someone who had a loved one/relative/friend killed or maimed by a previous muslim terrorist act?
I have no doubt that this christian terrorist had complaints against muslims, in fact all christians in Britain can legitimately feel outraged by the acts of muslim terrorists in Britain, just as they felt outraged by the much more numerous terrorist murders conducted by the IRA, a rival christian sect. The problem with the tit for tat argument is that it never ends. Christians killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in Iraq for no good reason. No doubt some muslims view this as a legitimate grievance. And so it goes. The British PM Tony Blair was a major proponent of that particular war. If you go back to British colonial history the potential grievances expand almost exponentially. There are always grievances.
They call it Islamaphobia in the news reports, but it is no longer a fear. It is hate. It is hatred for a belief system that blesses those who kill non-Muslims, gays, and mutilates females.
It is also the inevitable, unsurprising, consequence of the government's non response to Islamic terrorism, the overwhelming influx of foreign invaders and the government's actual attacks on its own people who are now fighting back.
If your government won't protect you and vilifies you for rational fears, some people WILL respond in ways that you are not going to like.
I don't condone it. I understand it as being a foreseen reaction. Foreseen, by those who don't have their eyes closed in fear or have their heads firmly ensconced in their nether parts.
Inevitable. Don't be surprised.
ARM: "terrorists only nominally muslim"
Yes, the JIHADISTS who turn to Mecca 5 times a day in prayer really aren't that into Islam...
"I have no doubt that this christian terrorist had complaints against muslims"
More stupid sophistry, as you have no evidence this man is a Christian.
Is Richard Dawkins a Christian? He's British and non-Muslim.
What about Bill Maher? If Maher went bonkers and did something like this, ARM would call him a Christian.
DBQ: "If your government won't protect you and villifies you for rational fears, some people will respond in ways - "
Yup. To quote Insty:
"When the responsible authorities fail to act, other forms of authority will assert themselves. They may not behave responsibly but they will act"
I love Insty. I'd take a bullet for him. Two if his wife would kiss me on the forehead as I recovered in the ICU. She's a cyborg, nothing is sexier.
ARM's trolling. He's doesn't believe what he's spouting.
ARM: "Christian terrorist"
Ah hell, not this shit again.
"I imagine a conservative and then remove all intellectual honesty and shame" - Jack Nicholson, As Good As It Gets
Humperdink said...
ARM's trolling. He's doesn't believe what he's spouting.
6/19/17, 8:37 AM
Probably not, but why would he deliberately try to make himself look stupid?
Jason: Relax. It's just part and parcel of living in s big city. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re Jason's thread-winner comment, why do lefties pour so much time and energy into the "but but but radical Christians!" argument, anyway? If Islamic terrorism has no more of a negative knock-on effect to society than the statistically rare individual tripping on a banana peel and falling into his bathtub while holding a plugged-in electrical device, what difference does it make who's doing it? If you ran into a bunch of people who were convinced that pneumonic plague now constituted a major threat to public health in the West, you wouldn't respond by first bleating "not all infectious micro-organisms!" before proceeding to harangue them about the pressing danger of some other statistically-negligible disease, would you?
Then again, we are talking about people who studiously ignore polls detailing what Muslims believe about the proper ordering of life in this world, yet become hysterical over poll-data concerning what people think about the state of things on some other plane of existence...
I'd like to know more about the driver before passing judgment. He deserves opprobrium, but we don't really know that much about his background and motives.
Unknown, you didn't go back in history far enough-back to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror-the progressive-ites of yesteryear.
>> this christian terrorist
Link, please.
I've considered finally adopting a Leftie sockpuppet as a social experiment here.
I still suspect that when Meade gets bored, Ann let's him goof around with aliases in the comments. I wouldn't begrudge him the entertainment, it's so tempting.
If the Brits had evolved a zero tolerance approach to the events in Rotherham I might be inclined to believe what they say now. They didn't and I don't. Sorry guys, you let it go too far, now it's out of your hands.
Fen @ 6:36.
that is right. When Islam kills innocents for their blood soaked god of death, we are lectured by PC leftists to "not get angry."
General "Mad Dog" Mattis also said it best:
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
Angel-Dyne: "why do lefties - "
My theory is that, ironically, they are mimicking the old Christian practice of Indulgences - collection Virtue credits to offset sins in their future.
Along the lines of "so maybe I DID make a pass at the baby-sitter, but I defended Muslim minorities by asserting the Crusades were just as bad, so I can't be a total douchebag"
"Interesting that Althouse frames this as muslims attacking someone, rather than as muslims being killed in a terrorist attack."
You're splitting hairs dude. I thought the guys attacking the attacker were being framed as heroes for taking care of the guy until police came. That's what I read. They Roy Larner-ed the guy.
Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?
Deus Vult
DanTheMan said...
>> this christian terrorist
Link, please.
In Pontyclun, where a man's a man and the children dance to the Pipes of Pan, lives a strange race of people, the Druids.
No one knows who they are or what they are doing.
ARM - Blame the Christians and keep the faith burning for the religion that will bring single payer. Praise be to Allah.
I fear the people will declare war when the politicians won't.
Hey, ARM, we must not use the actions of this individual to create a climate of hate for non-Muslimphobia (per your interpretation, Christians).
See,just relax,no need for fear, anger or confusion....
"Do not get angry" because crusades.
Fen said: "My theory is that, ironically, they are mimicking the old Christian practice of Indulgences - collection Virtue credits to offset sins in their future.
Along the lines of "so maybe I DID make a pass at the baby-sitter, but I defended Muslim minorities by asserting the Crusades were just as bad, so I can't be a total douchebag"
I think there is a lot of truth to that. Look at Hollywood. A more amoral, greedy, lecherous, frivolous bunch cannot not be imagined. But they hold politically correct views, so the casting couches, drugs, multiple divorces and lavish spending doesn't matter.
another witness, who gave his name as Abdul, told the BBC the arrested man was shouting "kill me, I've done my job".
What he really said was "Give me slack or kill me!", so I might've jumped the gun on the Druid stuff, cuz they don't say that, at least not on purpose.
exiled: Probably not, but why would he deliberately try to make himself look stupid?
He's not doing that deliberately, even if he's trolling. Like a lot of lefties these days, perhaps he hasn't quite caught on that the shit that used to work isn't working as well as it used to. And, to be fair, this kind of shit-tier shit really did used to work on most of the people most of the time, including a lot of earnest "conservatives", who would passively acquiesce to any retarded re-framing thrown at them.
It's normal for human beings to have difficulty relinquishing once-successful, now increasingly ineffectual behaviors, and it's interesting to watch this development in real-time, across many venues.
Or maybe he's just having a bad day.
Humperdink said...
ARM's trolling. He's doesn't believe what he's spouting.
6/19/17, 8:37 AM
exiledonmainstreet responded: "Probably not, but why would he deliberately try to make himself look stupid?"
A relative of mine would do this all the time. Take the stupid, non-defensible side of an argument just to get the discussion animated, and then laugh it off.
His true motive may never be known.
The London mayor was notably more outraged over this attack than about the others.
AReasonableMan said...Interesting that Althouse frames this as muslims attacking someone, rather than as muslims being killed in a terrorist attack.
Since that's not at all what happened, and everyone can see just how wrong that statement is, I find your comment interesting as well, ARM.
I'm not much for armchair pyschologizing so we'll move past the pretty obvious projection; what would someone hope to accomplish by making such a clearly-incorrect assertion? A troll intends to provoke and annoy, but something like this is so clearly wrong it doesn't have much of a chance to do either--it's more or less immediately self-discrediting. Interesting!
[Communities Secretary Sajid] said he wanted to reassure Muslims around the UK that the government would "always take a zero tolerance approach to hate crime".
Good start. Now they need to start doing the same thing with the hate crimes that Muslims commit.
"I want to kill Muslims." Were any Muslims harmed? No? Exactly Mocktutrule, outrage!
A relative of mine would do this all the time. Take the stupid, non-defensible side of an argument just to get the discussion animated, and then laugh it off.
We had such a friend. He would say things like, "Shakespeare is overrated".
Bob Dylan is overrated.
Wouldn't the most straightforward framing be, 'Christian terrorist kills and injures Muslims"?
How do you know the attacker is a Christian?
My alternate theory is the Inga Syndrome - they have done horrible things in their daily lives and seem punishment to absolve guilt. So they make outrageous statements and the bask in the demeaning insults. It's quicker and cheaper than hiring a Dominatrix.
There's also a narcissistic angle, they turn the discussion to everyone talking about them. Bad PR is better than being ignored, for some. And the exhibitionism dovetails with their Dominatrix fetish (see: Kathy Griffin).
I just wish they would pass us for it. These thigh high stiletto boots cost an arm and a leg.
Probably not, but why would he deliberately try to make himself look stupid?
Why stop now?
SEEK punishment. THEN bask.
Damn phone.
A relative of mine would do this all the time. Take the stupid, non-defensible side of an argument just to get the discussion animated, and then laugh it off.
Debating was a family pastime. Aunts, Uncles, Parents, and us kids when we became teens would all join in the debate. It rarely got vitriolic and was mostly a way to exercise skills. In fact if one 'side' was obviously losing, one or more of us would change sides and join the losing side so we could continue the debate.
I'm pretty sure that we didn't have any major conclusions or reach a consensus. Occasionally we would concede a point. "OK...you got me there, you do have a valid point....BUT------>......)
It was great fun and we learned a lot. We don't do this so much anymore. Sadly, even our family has become fractured by politics. Now we just make a pact to NOT discuss anything remotely political and keep it civil.
If you go back to British colonial history the potential grievances expand almost exponentially.
If you go back to the beginnings of the war against Christianity and Western Civilization 1,500 years ago...there is even more.
There are always grievances.
Especially if you belong to a tribal culture with a religion that commands you to kill outsiders.
I have a 3rd theory. But it involves squirrels. And since I just brokered a truce with them requiring multiple NDAs, you'll have to wait for the movie to come out.
Damn, gals. How do you endure these high heels. Torture.
This seems a weak argument given that many of the muslim terrorists also appear to be only nominally muslim.
Let me get this right....
Someone who commits murder in the name of Islam, isn't a real Muslim.
Someone who commits murder because the Koran tells him to, isn't a true Muslim.
Someone who believes he is going to be rewarded in Heaven by Allah for committing murder isn't a true Muslim.
But a White guy who tries to commit Murder represents all Christians.
Have I got that right?
Angel-Dyne said...
did I miss that the murderer was crying out "Deus vult!" or something as he attacked?
He did yell, “I’m going to kill all Muslims”. That seems close enough, albeit somewhat hyperbolic.
"Especially if you belong to a tribal culture with a religion that commands you to kill outsiders... or republicans"
FIFY. So many parallels.
BBC asks "why you Brits so angry?"
ARM "that seems close enough"
Huh? Because someone said "kill all Muslims" that telegraphs he must be a Christian terrorist?
That doesn't follow. Jihadists target infidels, not necessarily Christian. And I don't recall Christian churches announcing a new Crusade.
He did yell, “I’m going to kill all Muslims”. That seems close enough, albeit somewhat hyperbolic.
Yeah, because only Christians have a reason to want to kill Muslims........
Jim Geraghty's take on the day's events.
And I don't recall Christian churches announcing a new Crusade.
I wish they would. Just like the original crusades, it would be a defensive war.
Bob Dylan is overrated.
No argument from me over that assertion, ARM! ;-)
Hey ARM, once all the facts are in and we learn he's an atheist or agnostic or buddist or monk... what should your wager be?
I vote for a 500 word essay confessing your bro crush on Donald Trump.
AReasonableMan said...
Bob Dylan is overrated.
I was afraid the day would come when I agreed with you. At least it isn't the future of civilization, whatever the Nobel Prize folks think.
Jim Geraghty's take on the day's events.
Jim will be apologizing to the Muslims as they slit his throat.
Emotions are understandably running hot at the moment, but I'm sure the UK authorities will not tolerate any hate speech against white Brits in the wake of this attack. Zero tolerance for hate speech!
Actually, breaking news reports he's an ExPat. Bernie Sanders Democrat. "Feel the burn!" pez dispenser hanging from his rear view. Maybe we should just lock up the Democrats until we figure out what is you going on here?
/s
DBQ reports: It was great fun and we learned a lot. We don't do this so much anymore. Sadly, even our family has become fractured by politics. Now we just make a pact to NOT discuss anything remotely political and keep it civil.
Yes, it is a sad situation. Even when the topic is verboten, the undercurrent of disapproval from the left is so strong that it precludes normal discourse. The breach seems irreconcilable. As an 'enemy of the planet', I don't deserve to live. Thankfully both of my children and their spouses are fellow conservatives.
The real tragedy would be if we allowed this murderous act by a lone terrorist to influence our feelings or policy towards white Britons. That's what the terrorists want! We must go about our daily lives with no changes, no interruptions, and no ill-feeling towards white Britons as a group.
If it turns out this terrorist committed this heinous act in the name of Christianity the obvious reaction must be to reach out to the Christian community and make sure their grievances are fully addressed. Maybe we should set up an Office of Christian Outreach or something--start funneling some serious cash to the moderate Christians, that sort of thing.
Hoodlum: Excellent!
glenn: If the Brits had evolved a zero tolerance approach to the events in Rotherham I might be inclined to believe what they say now. They didn't and I don't. Sorry guys, you let it go too far, now it's out of your hands.
It was out of their hands long before Rotherham. The eventual loss of control was inevitable from the moment the ruling castes of the West decided that the "supreme function of statesmanship" was not "to provide against preventable evils" but to deal with the predictable evil consequences of imprudent, ideology-driven policy by coercively remaking human nature (or, failing at that, just coercing the hell out of humans and stripping them of their traditional freedoms). And they decided on that path a long time ago.
But what's happening can't be their fault, really. The guy quoted above (a really bad guy, probably an avatar of Satan), by predicting bad things, magicked the bad things into being.
Hoodlum, hat tip. Nicely done.
"an Avatar of Satan"
Hey! As an Aspect of Fenrisulven, I was promised a no poaching clause. What the hell. Wait till my Dad finds out.
part of me is giddy with anticipation of you and I being in "violent agreement" for a 3rd time straight. Not sure what that really means but it sounds kinda sexy
It means you're incapable of taking your own side in an argument unless it's stated exactly as you would state it.
Asi-Loki
Angry, weary
Wishes swordplay
Here, Satan spawn
Take the Bane of Heroes
...that just happened. You got served. Bring it Luci, you defrocked pansy cherub!
Earnest: "it means you are incapable of - "
Yah that's a fair point. I kind be a bit demanding. Foreplay for me but not for thee. #SorryNotSorry
;)
White Christian guy who commits murder doesn't represent all white Christian guys.
Brown Muslim guy who commits murder doesn't represent all brown Muslim guys.
And whenever the tables are turned, we always get the Tu Quo. Odd that...
Inga, what evidence do you have that the guy is a Christian?
For a supposed "Christian" yourself (no, I don't believe you) you are remarkably eager to shit all over your co-religionists.
Brown Muslim guy who commits murder doesn't represent all brown Muslim guys.
The difference is...this guy wasn't claiming to act in the name of Christianity, and Christianity tells Christians to turn the other cheek, not kill and enslave. The Muslim attackers claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, and Islam commands Muslims to kill and enslave Christians.
So for Inga, if it turns out the perp is athiest agnostic buddist etc... a 500 word post on Why Fen Is So Awesome.
Assumptions should have consequences.
A Bernie supporter and avowed Trump hater sets out to murder Republican Congressmen.
The resident ditz expresses outrage that she is lumped in with the shitbag, although she holds identical political views and hates Trump as much as he did.
A man tries to kill Muslims. We have no idea whatsoever what his religious views are. Inga (the "Christian") and ARM shriek, "he's a Christian!"
It's hypocrites all the way down....
what about brown Christians?
Rene Saunce said...
what about brown Christians?
6/19/17, 10:23 AM
Inga hasn't noticed that there are white Muslims and non-white Christians.
"The difference is...this guy wasn't claiming to act in the name of Christianity, and Christianity tells Christians to turn the other cheek, not kill and enslave. The Muslim attackers claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, and Islam commands Muslims to kill and enslave Christians."
This has been explained to Inga many, many times. She still has trouble grasping the difference.
And Atheism is the whitest of all religions. See Madison Wisconsin.
By-the-way....I went to a Wells Fargo cash machine this morning. Before they would dispense my $60 I had to watch an ad play on the screen promoting gay sex. They then asked me if I would like additional information on homosexual causes. I pushed "no thanks". I wonder if this is part of Wells Fargo's conservative Muslim outreach program.
"...what evidence do you have that the guy is a Christian?"
I don't.
When a non Christian white guy commits murder, he doesn't represent all white non Christian guys.
He did yell, “I’m going to kill all Muslims”. That seems close enough, albeit somewhat hyperbolic.
No he didn't. It's clear from anyone reading the article, or even the headline of the post, that he didn't say he was out to "kill all Muslims".
He said "I want to kill Muslims. I want to kill Muslims." And after he was subdued he said, "kill me, I've done my job".
This is a guy who just wanted some payback for the recent attacks. And when he got it, he was done.
Inga sez:
When a non Christian white guy commits murder, he doesn't represent all white non Christian guys.
Repeated for a third time, since some people are really, really slow:
"The difference is...this guy wasn't claiming to act in the name of Christianity, and Christianity tells Christians to turn the other cheek, not kill and enslave. The Muslim attackers claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, and Islam commands Muslims to kill and enslave Christians."
This is so awful.
The word "terrorism" has gotten interesting again. There seems to be a push to now label all kind of big killing events "terrorism". I watched the BBC last night as people pushed to get this attack called "terrorism". But this seems more like a hate crime. Or a crime crime.
Is it a way to make terrorism something other than it is?
Am I the only one to see the obvious link between Muslim and anti-Muslim truck slaughter?
Rental trucks. Investigate u-haul, they are behind it. No such thing as bad publicity.
When a non Christian white guy commits murder, he doesn't represent all white non Christian guys.
Nah, but if you can label him some version of "deplorable" you can write him off with the whole lot.
By-the-way....I went to a Wells Fargo cash machine this morning. Before they would dispense my $60 I had to watch an ad play on the screen promoting gay sex. They then asked me if I would like additional information on homosexual causes. I pushed "no thanks". I wonder if this is part of Wells Fargo's conservative Muslim outreach program.
Seriously, Dave? I would change banks so fast...
White Christian guy who commits murder doesn't represent all white Christian guys.
Brown Muslim guy who commits murder doesn't represent all brown Muslim guys.
6/19/17, 10:11 AM
One obvious diff is when Muslims attack, there are always multiple attackers involved, whether on scene or elsewhere. This guy will have no co-conspirators, guaranteed.
(except Trump, of course)
While I do not believe in 'eye for an eye' (as in the Old Testament) .... still 'As you roll a stone, so shall it be rolled back to you' (Also in the Old Testament.)
And the Muslims are shocked someone might, you know, want payback?
Hold your horses - the statement that the perp yelled "I want to kill all muslims" is from a Muslim witness...
Hello, Hands Up Don't Shoot.
Hello, He was given a rough
Hello, Keith only had a book in his
And so far only information on perp is that he is 48 white male. You two should be ashamed of yourselves, politicing this tragedy to spread your prejudice towards Christians.
By-the-way....I went to a Wells Fargo cash machine this morning. Before they would dispense my $60 I had to watch an ad play on the screen promoting gay sex. They then asked me if I would like additional information on homosexual causes. I pushed "no thanks". I wonder if this is part of Wells Fargo's conservative Muslim outreach program.
Local Bank of America streamed CNN. I talked to manager and she switched to Food Channel.
And why do you guys have to always push a narrative. Why can't you just analyze the situation based on its own merits? You always come with some agenda. So disingenuous and corrupt.
Fen said...
And why do you guys have to always push a narrative. Why can't you just analyze the situation based on its own merits? "
Because whites, and more specifically white non-leftist men are the source of all evil in the world, according to leftists. And Christianity is the most oppressive religion ever.
Every event must be reshaped and distorted to fit that narrative.
Dave from Minnesota:
By-the-way....I went to a Wells Fargo cash machine this morning. Before they would dispense my $60 I had to watch an ad play on the screen promoting gay sex. They then asked me if I would like additional information on homosexual causes. I pushed "no thanks". I wonder if this is part of Wells Fargo's conservative Muslim outreach program.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Banks once gave away toasters for your deposits, now they demand that you Taste the Rainbow, bigot! before granting you the privilege of withdrawing your own money?
I rarely use ATMs these days; is forcing ads on users now common? Do they make you listen to pop music from hell as you attempt to innocently conduct necessary business, the way gas stations do these day?
A Muslim witness (same one?) claimed that 3 people were in the van. But police have stated they have no other suspects (ie they discount the witness).
Curiouser and curiouser....
One witness after the scene confirmed the driver screamed "make America great again!" according to several anonymous officials at the BBC and Guardian.
By way of analogy: A Muslim man is suspected of raping a Christian woman. A civilized person wants to see the suspect arrested and tried for rape. A barbaric person wants to see a Muslim woman raped to “even things out.” You have more than a few barbaric commenters these days.
Hmmm. It appears my Give-a-Damn Meter is busted.
Earnest Prole: By way of analogy: A Muslim man is suspected of raping a Christian woman. A civilized person wants to see the suspect arrested and tried for rape.
That's what a civilized person living in a civilized society wants, and can get.
A barbaric person wants to see a Muslim woman raped to “even things out.”
What's your take on what a civilized person is supposed to do when the barbarians and their castrati allies have taken over the institutions of law and won't pursue the perps, the former because of tribal allegiance, and the latter out of fear of being accused of racism or the "phobia" of the week?
An Islamophobe wants to see the suspect arrested and tried for rape.
FIFY
"Christians killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in Iraq for no good reason." - ARM
It is only Monday, and that will easily be the stupidest thing I'll read all week.
Thank you.
Why is anyone surprised about this particular terrorist event? Tid-for-tat strategy! Just look at the Middle East, Muslims from different tribes and religions are constantly practicing such strategy. But I love the MSM reporting of this event, and the typical political hacks (top police officials) pushing the PC narrative.
Oh, re my comment @11:23 AM, I forgot to add:
And when the civilized person is likely to be subject to criminal prosecution himself for "hate speech" or "promoting racial animosity" if he complains about it?
Earnest Prole said...By way of analogy: A Muslim man is suspected of raping a Christian woman. A civilized person wants to see the suspect arrested and tried for rape. A barbaric person wants to see a Muslim woman raped to “even things out.” You have more than a few barbaric commenters these days.
It's so tough to tell who's the barbarian these days, isn't it EP? Or really, I guess, to find someone who isn't a barbarian.
Lefty asshole tries to murder a bunch of Repub. congresscritters = he's a barbarian.
Righty jerk interrupts a play in a park as a protest = she's a barbarian.
Lefty mobs attack MAGA marches/rallies/non-Lefty speakers = they're barbarians.
Righty speakers say mean things, hold unacceptable opinions = they're barbarians.
I dunno, maybe it's barbarians all the ways down.
A fair percentage of Britons objected to the importation of vast number of mostly-Muslim foreigners. Their reason for objecting ranged from xenophobia/racism generally to a desire to maintain their then-current national identity. They were all labeled hateful barbarians, their views were dismissed, and many people expressing those views were charged with crimes. Barbarians!
The people of that nation have recently suffered several terrorist attacks, carried out, no doubt, by barbarians. Barbarians of the sort the Britons referenced above warned about/were called evil for warning against. From preliminary reports it seems possible that one of those Britons might have been "radicalized" by recent events and decided that--as a state-declared barbarian whose views and opinions are intolerable socially and possibly illegal to express--his best recourse was to murder a bunch of innocent (Muslim) people. When you treat someone like a barbarian/tell them that they have not place in your society they might decide to act like a barbarian/attack your society in a barbaric way.
That's the line about Islamic terrorists, right? They lash out because they're hated/feared, because they don't have opportunities, because they're not well-integrated into society, because they don't feel like their culture/social mores are respected, and so on? If that's true of those guys isn't it also true of the guys on the other extreme?
I don't cheer the murder of innocent people--I certainly don't think murdering innocent Muslims is a justified "eye for an eye" as a response to Islamic terrorist attacks. I don't cheer the interruption of a play--I don't think messing up the night of "innocent" playgoers to make a point about Lefty hypocrisy is a justified response.
I find it odd, though, that the same people who continuously insist that I think deeply about the root causes of violence and hatred when it's directed at "me"/my side have no such urge to look for root causes and/or address the underlying motivation for bad acts committed against others.
ARM: "Christians killed hundreds of millions of Muslim babies in Iraq for no good reason"
They had Caus Belli. The Iraqis were pouring Stoli on the rocks. That's alcohol abuse.
Meanwhile,
A suspect who tried to attack security forces on the Champs-Elysees shopping district in Paris Monday afternoon -- when he rammed his car into a police van -- had a rifle and explosives in his vehicle, French investigators said.
The attacker died shortly after the incident, the French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb said. The attacker, a 31-year-old man from the Paris suburb of Argenteuil, was badly burned after his car exploded when he deliberately crashed it into a police van.
France has been under a state of emergency since the November 2015 attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris.
Everyone has to stand up and say this is wrong every time it is done. This will not do anything about the problem of an un-assimilated population that wants to kill us or conquer us.
No matter who acts this way it only results in more anger and more terror.
"I rarely use ATMs these days; is forcing ads on users now common?"
I use Chase and haven't seen this.
I would change banks.
I haven't seen any ads at PNC ATMs either.
maybe it's barbarians all the ways down
Somewhere on that spectrum between tribe and pack.
Achilles said...Everyone has to stand up and say this is wrong every time it is done. This will not do anything about the problem of an un-assimilated population that wants to kill us or conquer us.
I agree. This is wrong and should neither be excused, nor encouraged, nor tolerated.
The same is true for every other terror attack. I don't want to hear "well this is awful but understandable" nor any of that shit about any terror attacks. I don't want to hear that "it's not a big deal; when you live in a city with millions there'll be some nutcases who act violently but there's no bigger meaning or lesson to it" or the like. My objection is that I DO hear that, quite often, when the attacker is killing in the name of Islamism.
It's a terrible standard and I object to it. If the nice mainstream people are going to use that standard, though, I insist they use it in all cases. Fair?
ARM: "He did yell, “I’m going to kill all Muslims”. That seems close enough, albeit somewhat hyperbolic."
Maybe he was homosexual and was angry over Ingas beloved Islamists executing gays across the middle east by methods most barbaric or gunning them down in nightclubs?
ARM: "Christians killed hundreds of millions of Muslim babies in Iraq for no good reason"
ARM is Terry McAuliffes twin separated at birth!
Let's face it, the lies from the left have already achieved galactic proportions so it takes ever bigger and better lies to gain traction.
I'm not sure what Wells Fargo's point is. The left turned on them anyway and putting ads on ATMs promoting homosexuals isn't going to make Bill de Blasio change his mind about banning NYC from having accounts with them.
Drago said...
ARM: "Christians killed hundreds of millions of Muslim babies in Iraq for no good reason"
Drago, I am deeply disappointed in your decision to highlight Fen's misquote. You are too good for this. While Fen's concept of argumentation never rises above the level of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting “nyah nyah I can’t hear you” in his loudest voice, you are a thoughtful man who understands the nuances of an argument. You lose by stooping to their level.
In the meantime, Scott Pelley of CBS wonders if the attempted mass murder of GOP Congressmen wasn't "self-inflicted." If Republicans weren't such hateful people, leftists wouldn't be driven to shoot them!
That is from a representative of the MSM who is not ashamed to voice such a sentiment in public, not some anonymous commenter on a blog.
For the record, I agree with Achilles about the London incident:
"No matter who acts this way it only results in more anger and more terror."
No matter who acts this way it only results in more anger and more terror.
Terror and anger are the whole point of terrorism.
I wonder if this is part of Wells Fargo's conservative Muslim outreach program.
I saw the same ad during my last trip to the ATM in the bluest East Bay, and I'll be curious to see if it's running in my Trump-country small-town home-away-from-home.
exiledonmainstreet said...That is from a representative of the MSM who is not ashamed to voice such a sentiment in public, not some anonymous commenter on a blog.
Yeah, that's part of what's so awful about the NYTime's bullshit editorial twice blaming the Tuscon/Giffords shooting on Palin and the Right--if they're willing to publish that (what with their "layers and layers of factcheckers") obviously false bit of propaganda, what do you imagine they're doing behind the scenes? If they're willing to publicly admit to that much bias/that much of a distorted worldview, literally in black and white, how much must they be doing privately to influence what's "news" and what narratives see the light of day? Telling.
AReasonableMan said...
Drago, I am deeply disappointed in your decision to highlight Fen's misquote. You are too good for this. While Fen's concept of argumentation never rises above the level of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting “nyah nyah I can’t hear you” in his loudest voice, you are a thoughtful man who understands the nuances of an argument. You lose by stooping to their level.
Laughable.
I know you all are entertaining yourselves abusing this jackhole but it is spamming up the thread. ARM, when you want to be an adult let us know.
Rather than engaging this troll I would like to engage the thinking people on this thread about how to actually solve the issue. It has to get boring dealing with his stupidity.
The first thing I am going to do is throw out the terms tribalism, collective social action, and government/authority responsibility.
ARM: Removing the word "babies" from the misquote does make it less stupid, but only in the way the infinite set of all even numbers is less than the infinite set of whole numbers.
Rather than engaging this troll I would like to engage the thinking people on this thread about how to actually solve the issue.
A modern crusade.
[class] diversity to denigrate individual dignity. Abortion rites to debase human life. Pro-Choice religious/moral/legal philosophy to leverage selective and opportunistic principles for political progress. Catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform in order to coverup collateral damage from elective wars, gerrymander districts, profit from redistributive change, and marginalize native people.
ARM: He did yell, “I’m going to kill all Muslims”. That seems close enough, albeit somewhat hyperbolic.
The only people I've personally encountered who've expressed anything approaching that level of animosity toward Muslims have been Jewish. Secular ones, as a matter of fact.
And why do you guys have to always push a narrative. Why can't you just analyze the situation based on its own merits?
Because they were taught there is no objective truth outside the narrative, and thus who controls the narrative controls the truth.
Achilles: I know you all are entertaining yourselves abusing this jackhole but it is spamming up the thread.
Yeah, you're right.
Rather than engaging this troll I would like to engage the thinking people on this thread about how to actually solve the issue. It has to get boring dealing with his stupidity.
It's a lot easier to abuse a jackhole on the internet. The problem is, I think solving the issue will involve things non-psychopaths don't want to think about, with good reason. We'll be forced to think about them sooner or later, when solving things will only be more difficult than it is now, but avoiding thinking about the hard stuff is standard human operating procedure.
By way of analogy: A Muslim man is suspected of raping a Christian woman. A civilized person wants to see the suspect arrested and tried for rape. A barbaric person wants to see a Muslim woman raped to “even things out.” You have more than a few barbaric commenters these days.
You left out the progressive who can't bring themselves to condemn the rape because the perpetrator was "oppressed" and doing so might be used to undermine the victim status of his group.
Rather than engaging this troll I would like to engage the thinking people on this thread about how to actually solve the issue.
Can we first get clear about the issue? Is it the issue of driving Trucks into Mosques? Or is it the issue of driving trucks into people at random locations around London, and then getting out to slash their throats?
Because I'm pretty sure stopping one stops the other.
Achilles: Rather than engaging this troll I would like to engage the thinking people on this thread...It has to get boring dealing with his stupidity.
Aside: I would also add that it would behoove "thinking people" on this, or any thread, to read the thread before posting. Repeating what has already been said before you showed up also makes for "stupid and boring". Old rule of the internet, but still widely ignored after all these years.
Gahrie said...
A modern crusade.
1. Goals
2. Strategy
3. Tactics
For example:
1. Goal: To make Islam a modern religion with the vast majority of it's adherents tolerant of other cultural norms who will self police and be responsible citizens.
2. Strategy: Collective action against Muslims with a religious framework of Christianity as the background influence.
3. Tactics: ?
This is not the strategy I would choose. There are only 3 tactics at the macro level and we have already tried 2 of them.
Angel-Dyne said...
The problem is, I think solving the issue will involve things non-psychopaths don't want to think about, with good reason. We'll be forced to think about them sooner or later, when solving things will only be more difficult than it is now, but avoiding thinking about the hard stuff is standard human operating procedure.
The inability to focus on hard truths has made western society seem an easy target. I understand the reticence. Understand there are people who do live for the chance to go to fight/sacrifice on behalf of the tribe/group. Don't let the left label us.
Qwinn said...
Removing the word "babies" from the misquote
Your argument seems to be that it is unreasonable for muslims to be less than thrilled at having seen hundreds of thousands of their co-religionists killed in a war than served no purpose other than to weaken the strategic position of the invading nation. Much the same could be said of the Libyan war. History didn't start yesterday.
It doesn't make us shameless apologists to acknowledge that this christian terrorist has some legitimate grievances against some muslims. But the reverse is also true. To solve a problem you have to see it as it is, not the delusional fantasy that, "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". There are always consequences.
Aside: I would also add that it would behoove "thinking people" on this, or any thread, to read the thread before posting. Repeating what has already been said before you showed up also makes for "stupid and boring". Old rule of the internet, but still widely ignored after all these years.
For clarification, what about people who preface their posts with, "Look, I haven't read the entire thread but I'm just gonna post this here anyway"? Does that put them in a separate class, or do they get lumped in with the rest of the discourteous lot? ;-)
1. Goals
To end the threat of Islamic terrorism.
2. Strategy
Kill enough Muslims and destroy enough of their infrastructure that they are no longer a threat.
3. Tactics
Recruit and arm volunteers from all over the world, form the Charles Martel brigade, go to the Middle East and start killing Muslims and breaking stuff until they beg for peace.
History didn't start yesterday.
You're right. In this case it started in 639 when Islam attacked and conquered their first Christian nation, Egypt.
You guys are over-thinking this. It isn't about right and wrong. It's about whether we are going to let them destroy our civilization and enslave us. If we want to prevent that, we are going to have to do things a lot worse than driving a car over a few pedestrians.
Revenge for terroristic acts is not terrorism. I'm not condoning what the van driver did, but after Bataclan, Manchester, London Bridge, and countless other attacks, is it any wonder people want to strike back?
Innocent people shouldn't be attacked, but at least now Muslims are getting a taste of their own medicine. If they don't like it, there are dozens of Muslim countries they could move to, if they'll take them in. Or they can just get used to what is part and parcel of living in a big city, according to Mayor Khan.
Gahrie said...
In this case it started in 639
That would be right after the Roman and then Byzantine annexation.
Blogger Jupiter said...
You guys are over-thinking this. It isn't about right and wrong. It's about whether we are going to let them destroy our civilization and enslave us. If we want to prevent that, we are going to have to do things a lot worse than driving a car over a few pedestrians.
Part of the problem is all we do is talk. Talk talk talk talk talk until some idiot jumps in a van and runs over some pedestrians. What is the likely outcome? Do you think the Muslims will snap out of it and decide to be decent now?
Gahrie proposed a solution that could solve the problem. It is better than just talking.
To address that we have examples of past religious wars. They tend to last for extended periods of time and be bloodier than normal wars. In addition Gahrie's plan does not address the use of overwhelming force. I believe any solution needs to at least threaten the use of and demonstrate the will to use overwhelming force. It would shorten the conflict and reduce loss of life which are 2 of my goals.
Blogger Gahrie said...
History didn't start yesterday.
You're right. In this case it started in 639 when Islam attacked and conquered their first Christian nation, Egypt.
You are feeding a troll and enabling bad faith.
It would actually help him if you forced him to grow up before engaging him as well as improving the discussion.
ARN called Osborne a "christian terrorist", but I've seen nothing in the news to indicate his religious beliefs or affiliation. He's white and Welsh, but AFAIK religious belief isn't genetic. Prime Minister May had to point out that the police called it terrorism within eight minutes. DASS RAYCISS! If he'd been black or Muslim it probably would have only taken seven minutes!
Achilles said...
You are feeding
A troll is someone who suggests that a war with 1.6 billion muslims would be a good use of US personnel, political capital and treasure.
A non-troll would ask the question, how did we get here? And their answer would involve understanding how the US, which has no borders with any Islamic country, became embroiled in such a conflict. Embroiled to such an extent that some of its citizens are now openly advocating nuking large swathes of the muslim world.
1. Goal: To make Islam a modern religion with the vast majority of it's adherents tolerant of other cultural norms who will self police and be responsible citizens.”
Right now, the West preaching to Muslims about “tolerance” would be akin to a rich but wimpy pajama boy pleading with the Third World bully on the school playground “Please don’t beat me up.” (Not that the West is preaching to the Muslims; the lecture is being delivered to their own native populations). The West was more persuasive during the era of imperialism, because it was supremely self-confident (to the point of hubris) about the value of its’ achievements and culture.
What do Muslims see when they look at our “cultural norms?” Europe is filled with empty churches. The media and academic worlds condemn the West as irremediably oppressive and racist. The European masses have “nothing to live or die for;” their greatest concern appears to be their pensions and the continuation of the welfare state. As been pointed out, banks which feature gay rights commercials on their ATMs will probably not convince many Muslims that modernity and toleration of other cultural norms is the way to go. They look at us and see a culture sunk in weakness and self-hatred and depravity.
Mark Steyn wrote last week about seeing a striking juxtraposition in Montreal about 10 years ago – a woman in a burka walking past a condom and sex toy shop. He noted the sex toy shop is now shuttered. The women in burkas are still there and in greater force.
Revenge for terroristic acts is not terrorism.
Isn't that what the Muslims who ran their car into the pedestrians told themselves?
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
"You are feeding"
A troll is someone who suggests that a war with 1.6 billion muslims would be a good use of US personnel, political capital and treasure.
A non-troll would ask the question, how did we get here? And their answer would involve understanding how the US, which has no borders with any Islamic country, became embroiled in such a conflict. Embroiled to such an extent that some of its citizens are now openly advocating nuking large swathes of the muslim world.
Proof of bad faith. A non-troll would accept the indisputable truth that 1.6 billion Muslims are at war with everyone else everywhere they live and that over 90% of the Muslims currently alive have participated in the genocide/ethnic cleansing of at least one non-Muslim minority.
Until you grow up and stop blaming the US there is no point for someone who actually wants to deal with the problem to engage you because you are acting in bad faith.
"Gahrie proposed a solution that could solve the problem. It is better than just talking."
Gahrie's proposal involves attacking Muslims in the Middle East. That isn't likely to do much about the Muslims in Europe, or the ones Inga wants to bring here (I think it makes more sense to just send Inga there).
But it seems clear to me that the vast majority of our fellow Westerners are nowhere near ready to take the sorts of actions that might convince Muslims that they need to shape up. They're winning. Why should they change?
"Trump opened the gates to legitimize hate and this is what happens and will continue to happen. Reminds you of lynchings of black people just a few generations ago - the Trumpski's of yesteryear."
The South was heavily Democrat when lynchings were common. Democrats campaigned wearing their KKK robes.... The man who is alleged to have killed the muslim girl - does not speak english and was born in El Salvador, unknown if he is illegal. Hardly the profile of a Trump supporter. When will the left own and take responsibility for the violence they have encouraged and celebrated both historically and today???
ARM is so eager to blame his own country that he ignores Islam's "bloody borders" with every non-Muslim culture it rubs up against - in Thailand, in India, in Africa, in Israel, in Europe.
A bit provincial of him, I'd say.
Achilles said...
Until you grow up and stop blaming the US
The US has no borders with any Islamic country. There is no appreciable history of Islamic culture anywhere on continental America. Given these facts wouldn't it be worthwhile asking how US leadership so fucked up our favorable strategic position that people such as yourself are now advocating nuking 1.6 billion muslims?
Even if muslims are the problem that you claim, wouldn't it have been strategically smart to let them be the problem of those countries that border a muslim country? These countries include Russia, China and India, all of whom are past or future strategic rivals. Let them squander their resources fighting the muslim horde.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा