What can Westerners do to distance themselves from state perpetrators of terror and genocide?

[s28]

Today a 'right wing commentator' Katie Hopkins who is employed by a leading UK Broadcaster LBC Radio called for a 'Final Solution' for 'Muslims'

This is less than 100 years after Hitler tried to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe and termed it is 'Final Solution'?

Thankfully many Westerners do speak out and we don't condemn the 'silent majority' who don't but what can be done to root out the sense of entitlement which has led to centuries of destructive colonialism, imperialism and genocide ?

 

[s28]

Another Western 'celebrity' commentator had this astonishing take on matters

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Muslim community can & should do more to root out extremists. You should encourage them to do so. Urgently. <a href="https://t.co/dI6WABxbhT">https://t.co/dI6WABxbhT</a></p>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/866930166907449344">23 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Pathetic stuff really. These people are ISIS' version of Europe.

Anyways, if they wanna bring it, then bring it on!

We work hard and pay our taxes. I ain't taking BS from any racist.

Like it or not we are here to stay.

 

[shaz619]

Another Western 'celebrity' commentator had this astonishing take on matters

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Muslim community can & should do more to root out extremists. You should encourage them to do so. Urgently. <a href="https://t.co/dI6WABxbhT">https://t.co/dI6WABxbhT</a></p>— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/866930166907449344">23 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We shouldn't label the entire community a certain way or imply they are complicit in these terror attacks, but there are certainly area's for improvement:

More Imams which speak out against extreme salafism and wahabism, advocate the core beliefs and peace/love/tolerance

Arrest Wahabi/Salafi Imams who are found to be accepting generous sums from saudi arabia for the "development" of their madrasa whilst the government must also put an end to funding

Encourage folk to report any suspicious behaviour or hate filled speech's from Imam which only feed radicalization

Parents should be more careful in the upbringing of their kids and as a guideline ask Imam's "What do you think of Mawlid" if the answer is "Shirk/innovation" do not send your children there.

On the other hand:

We need a Labour Government

We do not need extremist solutions to extremist problems

Normal Muslims which do not account for the 0.1% must not be demonized and repressed when it comes to the way they want to practice their religion or dress providing they are not indulging in wahabism or salafism which is a threat to national security.

All communities must stand together and are equally responsible to look out for each other

 

[JaDed]

what can be done to root out the sense of entitlement which has led to centuries of destructive colonialism, imperialism and genocide

For most countries it was accepting people from the regions they imposed their destruction upon and provide them equal rights.

Now have they done that or not?

I myself dislike UK but don't think there is any denying that these countries have let people from South Asia settle in and live with respect and dignity.

 

[Slog]

There is nothing to be done

The mainstream doesnt equate actions of a few elite or of the state to the thoughts of the general population

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is nothing to be done

The mainstream doesnt equate actions of a few elite or of the state to the thoughts of the general population

Correct. The average citizen can't be held responsible for what their govts do, this is exactly the type of reasoning that terror groups use to justify killing civilians.

 

[troodon]

You cannot separate extremists from normal people. They look the same, eat the same, walk the same like normal people. If you interrogate everyone who look suspicious, it becomes racial profiling or Islamophobia....

No solution for this.

May be some day all people start inter marrying and religion becomes dead or a relic of the past, then the bigotry will end.

 

[Robert]

Katie Hopkins isn't a state perpetrator of terror and genocide. She's a loudmouth on the radio. Arguably you could draw an equivalence between what she does and hate preachers but it would be very hard to make such a case in law.

 

[Robert]

It would be easier, however, to petition LBC to sack Hopkins for hatemongering.

 

[James]

Correct. The average citizen can't be held responsible for what their govts do, this is exactly the type of reasoning that terror groups use to justify killing civilians.

Spot on and a great point.

Sack Hopkins by the way. She is surely on the verge of bankruptcy already after losing that big court case - unemployment would seal the deal.

 

[s28]

It would be easier, however, to petition LBC to sack Hopkins for hatemongering.

This is beautiful. It sends a great message.

British people do not tolerate hate mongers who do not respect British Values

Look at the universal agreement in the comments to this Tweet from Katie Hopkins employer

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I've been struggling with what to tweet all day. There are no words. Thoughts & prayers are with all those affected. ���� <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeStandTogether?src=hash">#WeStandTogether</a></p>— Ashley Tabor (@ashleytabor) <a href="https://twitter.com/ashleytabor/status/867032436877778945">23 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

15 RT's but 61 replies so far all appealing for Katie Hopkins to be sacked

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Margaret Thatcher telling the Mujahideen that "the hearts of the free world are with you" on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border in 1981. <a href="https://t.co/bjE9Of12ol">pic.twitter.com/bjE9Of12ol</a></p>— Crimes of Britain (@crimesofbrits) <a href="https://twitter.com/crimesofbrits/status/866947570333077504">23 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[enkidu_]

I think you should forget about it. The Americans have been merchants of death on all continents (and the way they did it make it viler) but they still somehow succeed in playing the victim card. These peoples are like the old Quraysh.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Correct. The average citizen can't be held responsible for what their govts do, this is exactly the type of reasoning that terror groups use to justify killing civilians.

Correct. However surely if their taxes are being used for state terrorism on a mass scale, they should speak out?

The march against the Iraq war was not just an attempt to stop the forthcoming war but to also announce to the world, not in our name.

Citizens of Nato nations should be far more outspoken than any Muslims, after all Muslims didn't elect ISIS but they elected Blair, Bush and the other warmongers who followed.

 

[enkidu_]

Correct. However surely if their taxes are being used for state terrorism on a mass scale, they should speak out?

The march against the Iraq war was not just an attempt to stop the forthcoming war but to also announce to the world, not in our name.

Citizens of Nato nations should be far more outspoken than any Muslims, after all Muslims didn't elect ISIS but they elected Blair, Bush and the other warmongers who followed.

Not only Muslims didn't elect ISIS, but they're the one shedding their blood fighting them (Iraqi soldiers, other jihadis or... Kurds. Yes, they're mainly Muslims), while scholars of all tendencies earned a death threat from the group.

 

[Yossarian]

Katie Hopkins isn't a state perpetrator of terror and genocide. She's a loudmouth on the radio. Arguably you could draw an equivalence between what she does and hate preachers but it would be very hard to make such a case in law.

However, the publicity the media gives to such hate mongers/ openly racists is that, as per the phrase "throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick", slowly but surely, bit-by-bit, their views have an effect and start changing perceptions.

One only has to look at Brexit and Trump's victory, where in both cases anti-immigrant rhetoric bordering on racism played it's part in the way voters cast their votes, despite the fact that in many cases their only interactions (such as of those living away from large urban centres with high concentrations of immigrants) with immigrants would have been limited to 'positive experiences', such as with medical staff in hospitals.

The OP referred to the Nazis "Final Solution". Whilst the vast majority of Germans were not racists or anti-Semitic to begin with, nevertheless hundreds of thousands of "ordinary Germans" would have had to be involved in building the concentration camps and gas chambers, and the railways leading to them, along with all the support infrastructure required to run and maintain this massive logistical exercise in mass murder. So rhetoric does have an effect in the way people act.

Just as radical preachers sow the seeds which lead to the likes of Isis (whose followers believe their actions are justified by religion), similarly the likes of Hopkins sow the seeds which lead to the likes of BNP and then onto even more extremism.

 

[s28]

Starting to look like when the Intelligence Services said they 'knew of the terrorist' they meant "we know him because he has been working for us"

Seems Salman Abedi went to Libya when he was a 'good guy' rebel fighting against Gaddafi

When will these people learn ?

https://www.channel4.com/news/the-teenage-libyan-rebel-from-manchester

And when he spoke of “Libyans in the west”, Saif Gaddafi included Manchester in his list.

He’s right that there are thousands of Libyans in Manchester who hate the Gaddafi regime. The city is home to Britain’s largest Libyan community. Almost every elder you meet fled Libya in the last 20 years, warned that they would be arrested or killed if they stayed, simply for calling for change.

They fled west in terror. But now they sense Gaddafi could finally be beaten; they’re not afraid any more. And they are daring to go back – some to find family, others to help the rebels. Some to fight alongside them.

I was given an exclusive interview with a Manchester teenager who has sworn to risk his life fighting to overthrow Gaddafi.

 

[s28]

People starting to ask questions about Theresa May complicity in all this

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">James O'Brien highlights the remarkable exchanges between Theresa May and police officers, who she accused of scaremongering <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GE2017?src=hash">#GE2017</a> <a href="https://t.co/5Kc1HTTqMO">pic.twitter.com/5Kc1HTTqMO</a></p>— I was a JSA claimant (@imajsaclaimant) <a href="https://twitter.com/imajsaclaimant/status/867744574873251841">25 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] in what way does we knew of the terrorist mean that he was working for the British govt or intelligence. What it actually means is that we had received some reports about this guy but didnt consider him enough of a threat to have full time surveillance on him or have enough evidence to convict the guy. Thankfully the U.K isnt a banana republic so you have to present clear evidence that someone can be indicted on terrorism charges and cant just throw someone in jail based on a suspicion or fear.

Then again its not surprising who is always engaged in far leftist n islamist apologetics.

anything to divert people away from the religious motivations of these Jihadist killers. Its always a conspiracy or something else but the main ideological factors.

 

[IAJ]

For a starter the western countries should get their forces out of muslim countries and see if that helps. If it helps or not all terrorists should get the punishment they deserve. No one is allowed to kill innocent people, whether they are muslims or belong to any other religion.

 

[s28]

lol 'far left islamist apologists'

guess you think Daily Mail are far left and islamist apologists ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4540822/Rebels-went-Libya-MI5-blessing-amid-Abedi-probe.html

Rebels living in England claim UK government let them travel to Libya to fight Gaddafi - even though they were subject to counter-terrorism orders - as investigators probe Abedi's visits to Tripoli

Former fighters including Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents described how MI5 'sorted' their travel
British government is said to have adopted an 'open door' policy for fighters willing to travel to fight Gaddafi
Comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted authorities knew of the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi
Those who travelled fought alongside Islamic militants despite being subject travel bans for posing a threat

By Gareth Davies For Mailonline
PUBLISHED: 11:49, 25 May 2017 | UPDATED: 13:30, 25 May 2017

 

[s28]

Goodness how naive somebody must be to believe ex MI5 officers who tell us of the conspiracies and intrigues behind their work

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HVPpTTYFZwo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[s28]

Maybe right wing commentator / Daily Mail / Telegraph writer Peter Oborne is a 'far leftist'

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Libyan exiles were released from British counter-terrorism control orders to go and fight against Gaddafi: <a href="https://t.co/Wa0U5cFkrP">https://t.co/Wa0U5cFkrP</a></p>— Peter Oborne (@OborneTweets) <a href="https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/867647342434013184">25 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not only Muslims didn't elect ISIS, but they're the one shedding their blood fighting them (Iraqi soldiers, other jihadis or... Kurds. Yes, they're mainly Muslims), while scholars of all tendencies earned a death threat from the group.

Muslims didn't elect ISIS yet feel the need to condemn their actions but westerners who believe in democracy and who elected leaders who committed mass state terrorism inc the use of weapons of mass destruction often defend these actions. I would say most feel it's was correct to kill many people in the name of self defence.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] Libyans being allowed to return to libya from exile is a lot.different to your insinuation that this attacker was on the MI5 Payroll.

He was radicalised in Libyan I.S a lot different to the the islamist opposition that rose up against Gadaffi initially. I.S arrived in Libya in 2014/15 years after Gadaffi died.

He was a religious extremist who slipped through the net.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] of course all intelligence agencies are involved im shady business but this is common tactic by those who deny links between islamist ideology and violent extremism and descend into blaming it on governmental and NWO conspiracies.

Rather than admitting that these radical interpretations of the religiom do exist and people do subscribe to it even if it is a minority of Muslims in the gramd scheme of things


If this attack was done by a far right fascist or nazi terrorist i doubt we would see so many conspiracy theories emanating from yourself. You would be talking about how to deal with far right extremism in the U.K not saying well we dont know if it had anything to do with the far right ideology at all. Its toxic masculinity or its something the govt has a hand in.

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] Libyans being allowed to return to libya from exile is a lot.different to your insinuation that this attacker was on the MI5 Payroll.

He was radicalised in Libyan I.S a lot different to the the islamist opposition that rose up against Gadaffi initially. I.S arrived in Libya in 2014/15 years after Gadaffi died.

He was a religious extremist who slipped through the net.

What is the difference? Please detail.

 

[90MPH]

If we keep looking for conspiracies then the problem wiill never be problem. The blame always goes somewhere else.

We need to question what drove this particular kid who was born in Manchester to blow his fellow citerzens up. What was the hatred, motivation etc ? It cant be just because ISIS told him.

Parents must also watch their kids, especially the internet where they can easily get radicalised.

Its going to take a long time but everyone has to work together. At the very least lets not deny there is a problem.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] the main Libyan homegrown Islamist opposition was another offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Brotherhood ideology is a lot different to I.S both are Islamist but on opposite ends of the scale. Brotherhood despite their problematic stances om certain issues dont propagate suicide bombings and attacks on civilians like I.S. Nor do they state a desire to build a caliphate and promote expansionism.

The Brotherhood are willing to negotiate and work with outsiders and be accepted into the international system. You could say they are more rational actors than IS who reject that.

The attackers father was a member of the Libyan Islamist oppsition to Gadaffi but he didnt propagate attacks in the West. That is something that is a part of groups like Al Qaeda and IS.

 

[James]

I don't think this was an internal conspiracy - surely even the most corrupt of governments would kill adults in a false flag, and not children. Only truly evil extremists with a warped ideological worldview (like ISIS for example) would murder so many children.

 

[s28]

I don't agree with much of Peter Hitchens politics but he is unafraid to keep on telling the truth as he sees it

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I love the profound expertise everyone else has about Islam. Where do you get it from? <a href="https://t.co/E95jVczoXw">https://t.co/E95jVczoXw</a></p>— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/868051673243164672">May 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[enkidu_]

I don't think this was an internal conspiracy - surely even the most corrupt of governments would kill adults in a false flag, and not children. Only truly evil extremists with a warped ideological worldview (like ISIS for example) would murder so many children.

or

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If we keep looking for conspiracies then the problem wiill never be problem. The blame always goes somewhere else.

We need to question what drove this particular kid who was born in Manchester to blow his fellow citerzens up. What was the hatred, motivation etc ? It cant be just because ISIS told him.

I don't know about that. I can imagine someone who follows with blind faith could be persuaded to anything. The bigger question is, what is the purpose of ISIS themselves? The Islamic state business had some sort of warped logic at least, no matter how stupid it obviously was to expect that they would be allowed to maintain it. What the hell is the purpose of blowing up teenagers or mowing down people in a truck?

 

[James]

or>

I see your point, but an attack on one's own people requires a different context.

It would take some actual evidence to make me believe this particular attack was a false flag. I cannot stretch my belief far enough to agree that an internal / government cabal was responsible for what happened in Manchester.

But I am open to listening to the evidence, if it is out there.

 

[enkidu_]

I see your point, but an attack on one's own people requires a different context.

It would take some actual evidence to make me believe this particular attack was a false flag. I cannot stretch my belief far enough to agree that an internal / government cabal was responsible for what happened in Manchester.

But I am open to listening to the evidence, if it is out there.

It wasn't a false flag attack, in the sense of Operation Gladio, where it's now admitted that the US financed both far right and far left groups in Europe (mainly Italy) so they can kill each other and the governments adopt a more critical position in order to undermine "radical ideologies" (back then, Soviet and Chinese brands of socialism), but it ca be a false flag attack in the sense that the competent authorities had all the knowledge and information to act against the imminent terror attack, but were "lazy" for functional reasons, to gain some political bargain. Pearl Harbour is a classic case here.

 

[James]

It wasn't a false flag attack, in the sense of Operation Gladio, where it's now admitted that the US financed both far right and far left groups in Europe (mainly Italy) so they can kill each other and the governments adopt a more critical position in order to undermine "radical ideologies" (back then, Soviet and Chinese brands of socialism), but it ca be a false flag attack in the sense that the competent authorities had all the knowledge and information to act against the imminent terror attack, but were "lazy" for functional reasons, to gain some political bargain. Pearl Harbour is a classic case here.

Yeah, 9/11 arguably the same kind of thing.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] Hopkins got sacked by LBC! The sun is shining and it's a bank holiday!

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] Hopkins got sacked by LBC! The sun is shining and it's a bank holiday!

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] the main Libyan homegrown Islamist opposition was another offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Brotherhood ideology is a lot different to I.S both are Islamist but on opposite ends of the scale. Brotherhood despite their problematic stances om certain issues dont propagate suicide bombings and attacks on civilians like I.S. Nor do they state a desire to build a caliphate and promote expansionism.

The Brotherhood are willing to negotiate and work with outsiders and be accepted into the international system. You could say they are more rational actors than IS who reject that.

The attackers father was a member of the Libyan Islamist oppsition to Gadaffi but he didnt propagate attacks in the West. That is something that is a part of groups like Al Qaeda and IS.

No offence but youre trying to give me details of a subject I am well informed of. The 'Rebel's come from all strands of 'figthers' and indulge in racist killings, suicide bombings, beheadings and the rest.

 

[s28]

Great news on Hopkins. I think she is a complete nutjob apparently even UKIP won't have her.

 

[s28]

Good piece by Mehdi Hasan from a while back

https://amp.theguardian.com/comment...mbs-terror-vladimir-putin-syria-david-cameron

 

[s28]

Good point by sister Jemima

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In UK, you're more likely to be killed by dogs (average 18 deaths per year) than terrorism (1.4 deaths per year) Fear mongering doesn't help <a href="https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ">https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ</a></p>— Jemima Goldsmith (@Jemima_Khan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/871307459520061441">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Slog]

Good point by sister Jemima

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In UK, you're more likely to be killed by dogs (average 18 deaths per year) than terrorism (1.4 deaths per year) Fear mongering doesn't help <a href="https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ">https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ</a></p>— Jemima Goldsmith (@Jemima_Khan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/871307459520061441">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What is the point?

Since people die for other reasons too we shouldn't be too hard on Islamist terrorists killing for fun?

 

[s28]

Always remember the West started all this with their foreign policy, lust for power and racism

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When then UK PM Margarget Thatcher came to Pakistan and addressed an audience comprising many Mujahideen calling them the West's allies <a href="https://t.co/XtiZQwmBWW">pic.twitter.com/XtiZQwmBWW</a></p>— omar r quraishi (@omar_quraishi) <a href="https://twitter.com/omar_quraishi/status/869500443541463042">30 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[s28]

The truth is inconvenient to the brown-nosers

 

[s28]

The truth is inconvenient for the brown-nosers

 

[s28]

That is why people are waking up in the West and Sanders and Corbyn so popular now

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Corbyn on Iraq War 2003: It will set off spiral of conflict, hate, misery. And will fuel wars on future generations <a href="https://t.co/XsAjaO44lw">pic.twitter.com/XsAjaO44lw</a></p>— We Are His Media (@ReclaimTheNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReclaimTheNews/status/871327466903699456">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Always remember the West started all this with their foreign policy, lust for power and racism

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When then UK PM Margarget Thatcher came to Pakistan and addressed an audience comprising many Mujahideen calling them the West's allies <a href="https://t.co/XtiZQwmBWW">pic.twitter.com/XtiZQwmBWW</a></p>— omar r quraishi (@omar_quraishi) <a href="https://twitter.com/omar_quraishi/status/869500443541463042">30 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Even if they did it was because it suited their purpose and the interests of their people. That's always been the case and still is now. It's what most democratically elected governments do.

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The unsayable in the UK's election campaign is this - what did PM Theresa May know about the Manchester attack? <a href="https://t.co/GGLcGraRze">https://t.co/GGLcGraRze</a></p>— John Pilger (@johnpilger) <a href="https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/870048702102204416">31 May 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[s28]

.<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xu7rap9jVqs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[s28]

Maybe Theresa May should release this report the Government have been trying to hide

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Says person who refuses to release secret government report on terrorist funding in the U.K.:<a href="https://t.co/lQpCRKs81l">https://t.co/lQpCRKs81l</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ax1EJmoRfA">https://t.co/Ax1EJmoRfA</a></p>— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) <a href="https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/871320576056377344">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Black Zero]

Good point by sister Jemima

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In UK, you're more likely to be killed by dogs (average 18 deaths per year) than terrorism (1.4 deaths per year) Fear mongering doesn't help <a href="https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ">https://t.co/YovUOfUivQ</a></p>— Jemima Goldsmith (@Jemima_Khan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jemima_Khan/status/871307459520061441">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

how is 1.4 per year? (is she averaging since big bang as few dozens are killed in last two weeks)

 

[James]

Very callous point from Jemima Goldsmith, just ridiculous really. Dogs only ever kill people because their owners have trained them to be vicious. Does not exactly equate to murderous human-on-human terrorism that can mis-shape the whole world. Pathetic and offensive point.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Very callous point from Jemima Goldsmith, just ridiculous really. Dogs only ever kill people because their owners have trained them to be vicious. Does not exactly equate to murderous human-on-human terrorism that can mis-shape the whole world. Pathetic and offensive point.

I think she is pointing to the level of hysteria in the media which is then transferred to the public. Maybe dogs killing humans wasn't the best thing to point out but her point is people living in constant fear is not the way forward but this is obviously what the media and government want as they can push forward their agendas.

Also you have to remember this is a woman who is close to Pakistan, a nation which has more terrorist attacks than most but the people there don't let attacks change their way of life.

 

[James]

I think she is pointing to the level of hysteria in the media which is then transferred to the public. Maybe dogs killing humans wasn't the best thing to point out but her point is people living in constant fear is not the way forward but this is obviously what the media and government want as they can push forward their agendas.

Also you have to remember this is a woman who is close to Pakistan, a nation which has more terrorist attacks than most but the people there don't let attacks change their way of life.

You know I respect your views on this.

Wasn't the greatest quality comparison from her though. Brainwashed fighting dogs on council estates that attack passers-by do not have the influence on domestic / foreign policy that terrorist attacks do !

But yes I understand the alternative perspective, and some of the right-wing media inspiring this insane "internment camp" twitter activity is totally unacceptable.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You know I respect your views on this.

Wasn't the greatest quality comparison from her though. Brainwashed fighting dogs on council estates that attack passers-by do not have the influence on domestic / foreign policy that terrorist attacks do !

But yes I understand the alternative perspective, and some of the right-wing media inspiring this insane "internment camp" twitter activity is totally unacceptable.

There is nothing worse than in innocent life being taken in the name of mindless of violence. But next to this is being in a state of fear, not being free, growing prejudice towards others and losing your principles and identity which all is playing into the hands of those who want to divide and rule.

 

[Gilly]

There is nothing worse than in innocent life being taken in the name of mindless of violence. But next to this is being in a state of fear, not being free, growing prejudice towards others and losing your principles and identity which all is playing into the hands of those who want to divide and rule.

I see that muslims are the ones living in fear. Posters on here are talking about their fears of what is going to happen and how they will be treated by non muslims after these events happen.

 

[s28]

Corbyn says it. We need to stand up to Saudi.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We need to have some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia & other Gulf states that have funded and fuelled extremist ideology <a href="https://t.co/dZuGWbcAYL">pic.twitter.com/dZuGWbcAYL</a></p>— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/871451490199756800">4 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KingKhanWC]

I see that muslims are the ones living in fear. Posters on here are talking about their fears of what is going to happen and how they will be treated by non muslims after these events happen.

You are correct many are. Personally I am not as I am able to look after myself but there are many women and esp elderly who worry about walking in the streets because they might be attacked by verbal or physical abuse. We have seen many incidents in the UK and I've heard of many in Australia. Why do you think people in such countries attack those who had nothing to do with any violence? Can't they differentiate between crimiinals and ordinary people because they happen to be the same colour? Seems to be there is still a lot of ignorance and backwardness in the supposed civlised world.

 

[Slog]

As far as racist anger and violence against Muslims is concerned it's predictable since this is an emotional time and this is a natural reaction for people

And it's not like the terrorists (whose actions some people justify due to their government's actions in Middle East etc) differentiate between the general populace and this who make policy...

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] if these attacks happened in less developed nations by a minority there would be communal responses and backlash against innocent members of the minority.

most westerners thankfully dont retort in this way bar a few people.

 

[KingKhanWC]

As far as racist anger and violence against Muslims is concerned it's predictable since this is an emotional time and this is a natural reaction for people

And it's not like the terrorists (whose actions some people justify due to their government's actions in Middle East etc) differentiate between the general populace and this who make policy...

But I thought places like America call themselves the civilised world? If it's a natural reaction for people in the west to be anger, racist and violent after a few attacks , isnt it then also natural for people living in places such as Iraq or Syria to be angry, violent and racist towards western citizens who have bombed them? Or do you places people in those countries with a higher moral code?

 

[Slog]

But I thought places like America call themselves the civilised world? If it's a natural reaction for people in the west to be anger, racist and violent after a few attacks , isnt it then also natural for people living in places such as Iraq or Syria to be angry, violent and racist towards western citizens who have bombed them? Or do you places people in those countries with a higher moral code?

Well it's mostly cussing and online abuse.

Better than actual attacks

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well it's mostly cussing and online abuse.

Better than actual attacks

You don't live in the US anymore so probably aren't aware.

This is a report for 2015, you can guess what is was like in 2016 and so far in 2017.

Attacks against Muslim Americans saw the biggest surge. There were 257 reports of assaults, attacks on mosques and other hate crimes against Muslims last year, a jump of about 67 percent over 2014. It was the highest total since 2001, when more than 480 attacks occurred in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html?_r=0

I wont even go into figures regarding Europe but an elderly man was murdered on the way back from the mosque to his home , just one horrific racist or Islamaphobic attack.

 

[Slog]

You don't live in the US anymore so probably aren't aware.

This is a report for 2015, you can guess what is was like in 2016 and so far in 2017.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html?_r=0

I wont even go into figures regarding Europe but an elderly man was murdered on the way back from the mosque to his home , just one horrific racist or Islamaphobic attack.

Do you think they are comparable to what Islamist terrorists are carrying out?

Obviously both are wrong

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you think they are comparable to what Islamist terrorists are carrying out?

Obviously both are wrong

Depends on the act , Murder is murder. Of course abuse is not comparable to bombing innocent people.



I'm just intrigued by your logic here.

You wrote:

""As far as racist anger and violence against Muslims is concerned it's predictable since this is an emotional time and this is a natural reaction for people -""

You used the term natural. So I would like to know if you were living in say Iraq, an American bomb dropped on your house while you were out and killed members of your family. Would it be a natural reaction for you to also fee racism, anger and indulge in violence against Americans?

 

[Slog]

Depends on the act , Murder is murder. Of course abuse is not comparable to bombing innocent people.



I'm just intrigued by your logic here.

You wrote:

""As far as racist anger and violence against Muslims is concerned it's predictable since this is an emotional time and this is a natural reaction for people -""

You used the term natural. So I would like to know if you were living in say Iraq, an American bomb dropped on your house while you were out and killed members of your family. Would it be a natural reaction for you to also fee racism, anger and indulge in violence against Americans?

Yes. I will reclassify violence as racist abuse, online and in real life. It gives the impression that I meant physical violence as well.

But your logic here is a bit off.

The people carrying out these attacks in the west are usually born and bred in the west andd brainwashed in the name of jibad rather than having any personal axe to grind. And often they are carrying out attacks in countries having nothing to do with these wars

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes. I will reclassify violence as racist abuse, online and in real life. It gives the impression that I meant physical violence as well.

You seem to be avoiding answering . A Yes or No will do to be clear thanks.

If you were an Iraq and your house was bombed would it be natural for you to be angry and violent against Americans as you have said it's natural for westerners to be so against Muslims?

But your logic here is a bit off.

The people carrying out these attacks in the west are usually born and bred in the west andd brainwashed in the name of jibad rather than having any personal axe to grind. And often they are carrying out attacks in countries having nothing to do with these wars

Often is not correct, often its in countries which have alliances to western military endeavors. But what about Iraqi's or Syrians or Libyans who attack foreign forces withing their own countries? Do they have a right to do so?

 

[Gilly]

But I thought places like America call themselves the civilised world? If it's a natural reaction for people in the west to be anger, racist and violent after a few attacks , isnt it then also natural for people living in places such as Iraq or Syria to be angry, violent and racist towards western citizens who have bombed them? Or do you places people in those countries with a higher moral code?

Just like America calls itself civilised and Islam calls itself a religion of peace both resort to violence.

 

[Slog]

You seem to be avoiding answering . A Yes or No will do to be clear thanks.

If you were an Iraq and your house was bombed would it be natural for you to be angry and violent against Americans as you have said it's natural for westerners to be so against Muslims?




Often is not correct, often its in countries which have alliances to western military endeavors. But what about Iraqi's or Syrians or Libyans who attack foreign forces withing their own countries? Do they have a right to do so?

This is not a Yes or No answer. It's more nuanced. You seem to be wanting a bone headed one word answer to a complex question. Anyways I'll try to explain my thoughts.

It's natural for them to be angry at Americans, abuse them and maybe even call for violence. And the odd loony will attack an American. The Iraqis or Syrians whose families have been killed by American or British troops will naturally feel angry and some resort to violence of their own against these troops. So I guess it is a Yes to the second question. But it is important to realise that there is a distinction. The Syrians or Iraqis or afghanis being wrongly killed are being killed by the state and the country's army so naturally their objects of aggression would be these same armies and state apparatus rather than ordinary people as the case has been in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However the situation does not apply in these terrorist attacks in western counties. Here the case is that the people carrying these attacks are not doing it for these personal reasons and in fact sponged off the benefits of the western societies they are attacking. So for them it is no natural reaction but in their warped minds it's being part of some global cause.

The people carrying out these attacks are normal Muslims who grew up in the west and are not part of some country's official apparatus. Often it's just lone wolves or a small group of people inspired by a global jihadist ideology. Since these are normal, everyday western Muslims the anger of the western populations will also be directed towards these western Muslims rather than some state apparatus. And hence the Muslim communities in these countries where these terrorists come from will bear the brunt of the racist abuse and calls for action

 

[KingKhanWC]

Just like America calls itself civilised and Islam calls itself a religion of peace both resort to violence.

Islam is belief system. Muslims are those who claim to follow this. A belief system cannot resort to violence, people do.

America claims as a nation and it's people are civilised, I've yet to see this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This is not a Yes or No answer. It's more nuanced. You seem to be wanting a bone headed one word answer to a complex question. Anyways I'll try to explain my thoughts.

It's natural for them to be angry at Americans, abuse them and maybe even call for violence. And the odd loony will attack an American. The Iraqis or Syrians whose families have been killed by American or British troops will naturally feel angry and some resort to violence of their own against these troops. So I guess it is a Yes to the second question. But it is important to realise that there is a distinction. The Syrians or Iraqis or afghanis being wrongly killed are being killed by the state and the country's army so naturally their objects of aggression would be these same armies and state apparatus rather than ordinary people as the case has been in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However the situation does not apply in these terrorist attacks in western counties. Here the case is that the people carrying these attacks are not doing it for these personal reasons and in fact sponged off the benefits of the western societies they are attacking. So for them it is no natural reaction but in their warped minds it's being part of some global cause.

The people carrying out these attacks are normal Muslims who grew up in the west and are not part of some country's official apparatus. Often it's just lone wolves or a small group of people inspired by a global jihadist ideology. Since these are normal, everyday western Muslims the anger of the western populations will also be directed towards these western Muslims rather than some state apparatus. And hence the Muslim communities in these countries where these terrorists come from will bear the brunt of the racist abuse and calls for action

I appreciate the answer and your point of view. Thanks.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] There is no justification for suicide bombing etc in Islam and there is no grievance on any level on my part for those British born folk who attack because their alleged homes in the ME are being bombed. Further, constantly making British Muslims disgruntled in Britain is risky because they can possibly go down a dark path where ISIS recruit them and radicalise them further; this is an issue when it comes to those who repeatedly feed them the foreign policy rhetoric and the minorities who demonize us but most citizens are cool with us as we've seen in the after match of the terror attacks in the UK recently.

So the only positive thing we can focus on now on an individual level and have more influence on is theology and understanding it's constituents so we're not exposed to potential radicalisation by extreme interpretations. That's not to say we shouldn't protest peacefully or avoid voting for those who have a better vision when it comes to the war on terror.

But it is through the Islam of tolerance, peace and love that we can truly succeed; we are not at war with anyone but it's the war in the mind which can consume people. We must stand united with human beings of all creeds, races and religions in order to survive and ensure a functioning society.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Report them all

We need to stop supporting protests,coups and rebellions in other countries that don't share the same ideals too us

We cause chaotic anarchy and destroy counties which not be as free willed as us but are stable.

If you know of anyone who is willing to fight to cause regime change in any country through anything other than the ballet box, or peaceful campaigning, report them immediately

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] There is no justification for suicide bombing etc in Islam and there is no grievance on any level on my part for those British born folk who attack because their alleged homes in the ME are being bombed. Further, constantly making British Muslims disgruntled in Britain is risky because they can possibly go down a dark path where ISIS recruit them and radicalise them further; this is an issue when it comes to those who repeatedly feed them the foreign policy rhetoric and the minorities who demonize us but most citizens are cool with us as we've seen in the after match of the terror attacks in the UK recently.

So the only positive thing we can focus on now on an individual level and have more influence on is theology and understanding it's constituents so we're not exposed to potential radicalisation by extreme interpretations. That's not to say we shouldn't protest peacefully or avoid voting for those who have a better vision when it comes to the war on terror.

But it is through the Islam of tolerance, peace and love that we can truly succeed; we are not at war with anyone but it's the war in the mind which can consume people. We must stand united with human beings of all creeds, races and religions in order to survive and ensure a functioning society.

I totally agree with you. I hate our foriegn policy as my taxes are being used but I know we have a process in place where we can disagree and speak up against this even though we can't stop it. Islam says if you see an injustice change it, if you can't change it speak up against it , if you don't speak up against it condemn it in your heart but this is the least of faith. Our Lord doesn't want to us to go and hurt innocent people in the country we live in, he knows our limitations and will even know if just condemn it in our heart. But not everyone understands the religion, they use their emotions to fuel hatred towards others which then leads to mindless violence. Foreign policy is no excuse to hurt anyone because then you no different but we also cannot ignore this is a factor in radicalsing people, who I believe to be vulnerable, have mental issues or are just filled with hatred which they use to play this out. It's not easy seeing pictures or videos of innocent children being burnt or being born with defects due to chemical weapons, this does create a lot of anger but it's how you channel this anger which is the key.

I've never met anyone who has said they will attack innocents as revenge and if I was to meet anyone like this I would explain the above. The problem is when a government is hell bent on using violence against civilians there will sadly be those who will use this to justify their actions. If this policy wasn't in place it would be difficult for them to do so but perhaps they would indulge in some other types of violent crimes. Bad people will always exist in all races and ethnicities, we need to cut off the fuel along which challenges their emotions. I really believe religion has little to do with their actions as firstly the religion doesn't call for them to take part in such actions no matter how much it's twisted Islam is very clear to even a minor taking innocent lives is strongly prohibited. If a fully atheist nation was bombed, people with such beliefs would also indulge in injustice as revenge.

 

[Junaids]

I will answer this question fully.

We can vote for whoever we think has the best policies, and against whoever we think has the worst ones.

Full stop.

The Libyan terrorist who attacked innocent kids and adults at the Manchester Arena was a British citizen.

If he didn't like British foreign policy, he was welcome to vote for Jeremy Corbyn or the Greens.

What he is not entitled to do is massacre innocent civilians. If he doesn't like our democracy and wants to practice savagery instead, he's welcome to leave.

 

[Junaids]

Islam is belief system. Muslims are those who claim to follow this. A belief system cannot resort to violence, people do.

America claims as a nation and it's people are civilised, I've yet to see this.

I have to challenge you on this.

I'm British - living in Australia - and we tend to be a little condescending and patronizing towards our American cousins.

But let me tell you this. Twice in the twentieth century they saved our bacon. The British would have been eating sauerkraut and the Aussies would have been eating sushi if it weren't for the heroic sacrifices of our American friends.

Yes, I'm well aware that they have done some dodgy things in their foreign policy since 1945. But from Genghis Khan to King Leopold to the British Empire, I have seen no major imperial power in world history as benevolent as the Americans. They have done less damage and resorted to savagery and brutality less than any other major power.

I'm proud to be a friend of the Americans.

 

[James]

Report them all

We need to stop supporting protests,coups and rebellions in other countries that don't share the same ideals too us

We cause chaotic anarchy and destroy counties which not be as free willed as us but are stable.

If you know of anyone who is willing to fight to cause regime change in any country through anything other than the ballet box, or peaceful campaigning, report them immediately

Good post and agree.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I have to challenge you on this.

I'm British - living in Australia - and we tend to be a little condescending and patronizing towards our American cousins.

But let me tell you this. Twice in the twentieth century they saved our bacon. The British would have been eating sauerkraut and the Aussies would have been eating sushi if it weren't for the heroic sacrifices of our American friends.

Yes, I'm well aware that they have done some dodgy things in their foreign policy since 1945. But from Genghis Khan to King Leopold to the British Empire, I have seen no major imperial power in world history as benevolent as the Americans. They have done less damage and resorted to savagery and brutality less than any other major power.

I'm proud to be a friend of the Americans.

Is it April fools day?

I accept this challenge. Please start a thread as this is off topic on here. I put foward America is the biggest terrorist state in history as it has used more weapons of mass destrution than any power before and due to it's political and military policies it has murdered more people than any nation before , maybe apart from the British but they are no longer a world power.