PDA

View Full Version : London terror attack


Exocet
March 22nd, 2017, 03:36 PM
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3151786/london-terror-attack-parliament-car-pedestrians-westminster/

eric2001
March 22nd, 2017, 03:40 PM
Horrible, Horrible! :mad:

Gumleaf
March 22nd, 2017, 04:09 PM
Another nut case. But sadly this is the norm now for most of us. Just watched a very very good speech from PM May, she spoke very strongly which is what is needed.

Brightwolf
March 22nd, 2017, 04:47 PM
God...I hope the people there are ok. I wish this would stop happening, unfortunately, it looks like it won't anytime soon.

rioo
March 23rd, 2017, 01:22 AM
oh man that's really crazy. hope everything is alright.

btw I also just watch james Bond Skyfall yesterday (there is scene about shooting inside london parlemen in movie). Can't believe this really happened in real life.

PlasmaHam
March 23rd, 2017, 11:39 AM
Just another example of the sad trend across Europe. Its good to see some European nations(Britain not included) who are doing something about it. Up until now Britain has been spared such attacks, maybe now they will do something about the obvious dangers.

Exocet
March 23rd, 2017, 01:25 PM
Just another example of the sad trend across Europe. Its good to see some European nations(Britain not included) who are doing something about it. Up until now Britain has been spared such attacks, maybe now they will do something about the obvious dangers.

http://i.imgur.com/B0aChic.jpg

Babs
March 23rd, 2017, 06:13 PM
The amount of terror attacks in the last >10 years is like listening to a really long aristocrats joke and the teller keeps going on and on describing all the horrible things that are happening and you're just waiting for the punchline but it never comes.

mattsmith48
March 23rd, 2017, 11:04 PM
Just another example of the sad trend across Europe. Its good to see some European nations(Britain not included) who are doing something about it. Up until now Britain has been spared such attacks, maybe now they will do something about the obvious dangers.

Yes they have to do something about all those crazy British citizens freely entering their country to commit terrorism.

The UK are one of the best at stopping terrorist attacks before they happen. When it happens most of the time its a lone wolf suddently deciding to try to kill as many people possible.

bentheplayer
March 24th, 2017, 01:09 AM
While this is a sad incident, it is absolutely disgusting for certain persons and politicians to use it as a political tool to incite hatred against Muslims. Rather than marginalizing certain groups and encouraging segregation, integration and cohesiveness should be promoted.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world atm so if Islam is really bred terror, everyone will be dead by now. The reality is that less than 2% of terror attacks in EU are claimed by "Muslim" radicals.

The media loves highlighting religiously-motivated attacks over political or environmental ones. These incidents also tend to get much more attention because of the rhetoric of Islamist extremism that’s used.

lliam
March 24th, 2017, 02:02 AM
could've been my words

swiftshadowolf
March 24th, 2017, 05:36 PM
What happened in London on Wednesday was crazy as hell :eek:

PlasmaHam
March 24th, 2017, 05:53 PM
While this is a sad incident, it is absolutely disgusting for certain persons and politicians to use it as a political tool to incite hatred against Muslims. Rather than marginalizing certain groups and encouraging segregation, integration and cohesiveness should be promoted.

...The media loves highlighting religiously-motivated attacks over political or environmental ones. These incidents also tend to get much more attention because of the rhetoric of Islamist extremism that’s used. I hope you won't ever use sad incidents to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, or gun rights then. After all, it is disgusting to use incidents like this to push political agendas...

bentheplayer
March 25th, 2017, 10:25 AM
I hope you won't ever use sad incidents to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, or gun rights then. After all, it is disgusting to use incidents like this to push political agendas...

Racism, sexism and homophobia are all forms of discrimination that are universal rights guaranteed by both EU and US law. Clearly the distinction between human rights and political agendas are lost on you. Clearly it is necessary to remind people that the right of protection against racial discrimination is afforded to all in those countries.

Post edited. ~Mars

mattsmith48
March 26th, 2017, 10:58 AM
I hope you won't ever use sad incidents to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, or gun rights then. After all, it is disgusting to use incidents like this to push political agendas...

Like that time Trump used a terrorist attack as an excuse to call for a muslim ban?

Porpoise101
March 26th, 2017, 07:41 PM
This terror attack is getting too much attention in my opinion. Only 55 victims (including wounded) were affected. Do I sympathize with them and their families? Yes. But do I view it as horrible failure of Western democracy where the Muslim hordes have free reign? Definitely not. In fact, with so few victims, I would even say that the British handled this quite well. It certainly wasn't like Paris, so I think it shows that Europeans are getting better at dealing with these sorts of problems. But I'll still maintain that there's no such thing as a real success until there are zero people harmed.

It's quite telling that the terrorist fear mongering has gotten to a high point when the focus is on 55 mostly wounded Britons instead of a destructive battle for Mosul and the 1,000 dead civilians in a the month from US bombs.

PlasmaHam
March 26th, 2017, 10:31 PM
Racism, sexism and homophobia are all forms of discrimination that are universal rights guaranteed by both EU and US law. Clearly the distinction between human rights and political agendas are lost on you. Considering the extend of ignorance displayed again, clearly it is necessary to remind people that the right of protection against racial discrimination is afforded to all in those countries.All these are political agendas and hiding them behind the cloud of "human rights" isn't changing it. The Left has repeatedly use these incidents to promote their agenda of speech restrictions, government authoritarianism, stripping of religious and personal rights, and socialism.

Also, your ignorance is showing. The USA does not have laws prohibiting homophobia, racism, and sexism on the societal level similar to that of Europe, as which I was referring to. No one here gets arrested for openly opposing Islam, being a racist, or spreading "hate speech", unlike Europe. Personal racism, homophobia and sexism are allowed and protected under the First Amendment. The Left wants to use incidents of attacks against minorities to advance their agenda of pushing America towards the anti-freedom discrimination policies of Europe. But the USA does not currently attempt to regulate societal racism(of which I am referring to) outside of business.

I find it so convenient that you completely avoided the gun rights question, which of all these is the only actual human right. The rest are just "right not to be offended" rights.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world atm so if Islam is really bred terror, everyone will be dead by now. If every gun-owner in the world wanted to commit shootings, we would all be dead by now too. That isn't stopping Lefties from saying that guns should be banned.

Like that time Trump used a terrorist attack as an excuse to call for a muslim ban?
This has nothing to do with my question. If it is wrong to use a terror attack to push an anti-Islam agenda, is it not also wrong to use similar attacks to push anti-guns and anti-freedoms agendas? Please actually answer my question with an answer, not a question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something I read recently that might be enlightening to some. The media often points towards these Islamic terrorists as living a very secular and western lifestyle, thus they can't be "true Muslims". However, the opposite may be true. In Islam, regardless of how you lived your life there is one guarantee that you will make it to Muslim heaven, to die for Islam. These terrorists, living such secular lifestyles, realize that their chances at making it to Muslim heaven are very low. The only guarantee they have is to fight and die for Islam. So they undertake suicide missions on the belief that it will guarantee them a place in the afterlife. This explains why so many Islamic terrorists are native born, as they are in a much more secular environment than those in majority Muslim countries. Just something to think upon, I found it pretty enlightening.

Post edited. ~Mars

bentheplayer
March 26th, 2017, 11:58 PM
All these are political agendas and hiding them behind the cloud of "human rights" isn't changing it. The Left has repeatedly use these incidents to promote their agenda of speech restrictions, government authoritarianism, stripping of religious and personal rights, and socialism.

Human rights of equality and due process are codified in various constitutional laws and if you are not familiar with them we can always have such discussion. Constitutional law sets out the basic rights of a person and citizen which are fundamentally different from political agendas which shape other forms of law such as immigration law. Constitutional law is bipartisan and irrelevant to the right vs left ideologies.

Also, your ignorance is showing. The USA does not have laws prohibiting homophobia, racism, and sexism on the societal level similar to that of Europe, as which I was referring to. No one here gets arrested for openly opposing Islam, being a racist, or spreading "hate speech", unlike Europe. Personal racism, homophobia and sexism are allowed and protected under the First Amendment. The Left wants to use incidents of attacks against minorities to advance their agenda of pushing America towards the anti-freedom discrimination policies of Europe. But the USA does not currently attempt to regulate societal racism(of which I am referring to) outside of business. Do you even think before you post?

The first Amendment merely allows free speech but not speech that incites imminent lawless action. Also false statements of fact, libel/slander and negligent false statements of facts can lead to civil/criminal liability. If you want to talk law go ahead. I am more than conversant in this area and of the specific distinctions of extent between US and EU law. While certain speech may be allowed by your first amendment, there are federal anti-discrimination laws which bar employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, colour and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the basis of anti-discrimination on sex which was agreed with by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. While federally, it has been limited to employment rights, some states have expanded it. Regardless the fact is there are still some forms of protection for such persons in the US even though the extent differs from states. Also your constitution has an equal protection clause which extends to all persons which mean that no group can be discriminated against. Notice that I didn’t specify the specific type and extent of these rights. So before you start claiming or assuming my ignorance please read what I wrote carefully. I am usually quite careful with my words when replying to you.

Justifying discrimination on the basis freedom is disingenuous. If you wish to debate LGBT issues go ahead and create another thread on ROTW. Effectively, I believe we will be debating whether religious liberty can justify racism and sexism as well as why religious liberty should be prioritised over the liberty of others and restricting freedom of the rest.

I find it so convenient that you completely avoided the gun rights question, which of all these is the only actual human right. The rest are just "right not to be offended" rights.

I am not avoiding gun rights questions which aren’t deemed as a universal right worldwide, apart from the US. Besides how is this relevant to racial or religious discrimination which is the current topic? Is this another straw man argument from you?
As a matter of fact gun ownership is not a human right (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/29/gun-ownership-is-not-a-human-right) but a privilege. Even despite the clear link of guns in the context of militias and the long history of gun regulation laws from the earliest days of the founding of America until the present day, you still choose to selectively cheery pick your evidence.


If every gun-owner in the world wanted to commit shootings, we would all be dead by now too. That isn't stopping Lefties from saying that guns should be banned.

I am not saying that all guns should be banned. Read my response below. I don’t conform to either left or right ideologies.

I've been having debates here long before you came along, and yet you are the first person to personally challenge my integrity. You have a real problem of disrespect and prejudice during debates. That's the main reason I avoid having personal debates with you. Work on reducing that.

I am not challenging ur integrity but it’s a little tiresome when what you say can be so easily rebutted. In fact I am not the first person to ask this question. Someone else did but that post was deleted. Where is my alleged prejudice and disrespect? Please let me know of the specific language that bothers you and rephrase it in a way that conveys the same meaning but in your opinion isn’t disrespectful. I won’t mind changing the way I write to one that is more palatable to you. However, don’t expect me to buy alternative facts since I only consider empirical evidence and rational arguments made devoid of emotions. If you think I am attacking you personally, I shall clarify that I am not. I have similar expectations on you as for everyone else and that is to have the courtesy of reading carefully what one writes and responding thoughtfully to them. If you are pointing out my low patience level for irrational arguments then yes you are not wrong to say that.

This has nothing to do with my question. If it is wrong to use a terror attack to push an anti-Islam agenda, is it not also wrong to use similar attacks to push anti-guns and anti-freedoms agendas? Please actually answer my question with an answer, not a question.

I didn’t mention anything about gun laws. Incidentally I am fairly familiar with firearms and used to do skeet shooting. I have no issues with recreational shooting or guns in general but it seems a tad ridiculous for private citizens to own assault weapons like Ak47. The question here would be one’s intention for gun ownership. I am all for recreational shooting but not guns designed to kill other people or for use in wars.

Something I read recently that might be enlightening to some. The media often points towards these Islamic terrorists as living a very secular and western lifestyle, thus they can't be "true Muslims". However, the opposite may be true. In Islam, regardless of how you lived your life there is one guarantee that you will make it to Muslim heaven, to die for Islam. These terrorists, living such secular lifestyles, realize that their chances at making it to Muslim heaven are very low. The only guarantee they have is to fight and die for Islam. So they undertake suicide missions on the belief that it will guarantee them a place in the afterlife. This explains why so many Islamic terrorists are native born, as they are in a much more secular environment than those in majority Muslim countries. Just something to think upon, I found it pretty enlightening.

What you are pointing is that these Muslim terror groups are no different from Christian terror groups like Hutaree, Army of God, The Covenant The Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), Phineas Priesthood and Ku Klux Klan. What you are quoting is radical ideology which is peddled by the terror groups and not mainstream Islam. The proponents of the Islamic State have been riding on the bandwagon of ‘jihad’ and proclaiming themselves as a ‘Caliphate’ in their attempt to gain legitimacy. If you ever did look into their ideologies, you would have realised that their narrative of Islam is full of deception and fallacies. Their understanding of Islam is religiously deceitful due to their selectiveness in interpreting those religious texts. To a certain extent, these groups can even be considered as religious cults which have nothing to do with true Islam. Your claim is reflective of one who has bought into the deceitfulness of people who try to paint all Muslims as terrorist. Perhaps you are unaware of the many fatwas and other statements issued by various Muslim religious leaders globally condemning terror attacks on innocent civilians?

Mars
March 27th, 2017, 07:11 AM
Some posts in this thread have been edited or altered. How about instead of debating several off topic matters, we keep this thread on topic. This isn't even ROTW ffs

mattsmith48
March 27th, 2017, 10:28 AM
This has nothing to do with my question. If it is wrong to use a terror attack to push an anti-Islam agenda, is it not also wrong to use similar attacks to push anti-guns and anti-freedoms agendas? Please actually answer my question with an answer, not a question.

Because its wrong to push an anti-Islam agenda anytime, doing it right after a terrorist attack just makes it worst. There is nothing wrong with pushing for strick gun control and doing it after someone gets a gun legally and kill 10 people in a school, is like asking after a natural disaster what can we do to prevent this or limit the damage.

If you have any other easy questions you know where to find me :)