Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Harbal »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: As in the sentence "vegetariantaxidermy's intelligence is way below average."
She seems to be smart enough to make you look silly, Hobbes.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Harbal wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: As in the sentence "vegetariantaxidermy's intelligence is way below average."
She seems to be smart enough to make you look silly, Hobbes.
You'd think that being so stupid yourself.
Little things please little minds.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I feel sorry for the one who is only .6 of a person.
Find out what the word 'average" means.
As in the sentence "vegetariantaxidermy's intelligence is way below average."
So says the person who cites conspiracy theories and says it's 'irrelevant' whether they are true or not, refuses to argue with me (unless you count shouting 'strawman' over and over again, 'arguing'), yet will argue with PE for days on end, getting banned in the process. Well I suppose at least you know your level and limits. :wink:
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: So says the person who cites conspiracy theories and says it's 'irrelevant' whether they are true or not, refuses to argue with me (unless you count shouting 'strawman' over and over again, 'arguing'), yet will argue with PE for days on end, getting banned in the process. Well I suppose at least you know your level and limits. :wink:
What's all this about? New here, so I don't know. Not so new, I don't want to know. :)
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Arising_uk »

Londoner wrote:...
The traditional reason for terrorism is to provoke just that reaction. The enemy of the terrorist are the moderates, in this case those Muslims who are integrated into society. By provoking an indiscriminate backlash, the terrorist can demonstrate that this integration was an illusion, that society never really accepted them, so that their only defenders are the terrorists. ...
Text book Mao.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Walker »

Londoner wrote:I note that on the same day as this attack some US army veteran killed a random black man with a sword, because he hated black people and wanted to 'make a statement'. I'm sure there were similar incidents elsewhere. It happens.
You know, despite the mayor of London saying that folks are just gonna have to get used to this sort of thing, living in a big city and all, I can't remember the last time I saw someone driving on a sidewalk in a car or truck, with the purpose of mowing people down. I really see no reason to get used to it, or to expect such behavior from other people.

Don't see any reason at all.

Wolves among the peace loving. This is the nature of savagery. One howls, another picks up the scent. What language do wolves understand?

Islington
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Walker »

“The birth of the city was a crucial step in man’s separation from nature. The city cut men off not only from the nonhuman cosmos but also from clans, tribes, and other primitive modes of organization. A self-governing city populated by more or less autonomous individuals has been the cradle of freedom, art, literature, science, and technology. But the city that has been a citadel against the nature around us cannot defend us against the nature within us, in our lusts and fears, and in the subconscious cellars of our minds. It is in the city that man’s lust and fears have free play, and dehumanization spreads like the plague. The lust for power in particular has shown itself to be anti-human. We savor power not when we move mountains and tell rivers whither to flow but when we can turn men into objects, robots, puppets, automata, or veritable animals. Power is power to dehumanize, and it is in the city that this lust finds the human material to work on. It is easier to dehumanize man in the mass than any individual man. Thus the city has been the breeding ground of all movements and developments that tend to press man back into the matrix of nature from which he has risen.”

– Eric Hoffer
The Temper of Our Time
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by attofishpi »

ForCruxSake wrote:Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Any thoughts?
The media currently are encouraging other would be terrorists by over exposing these fools.

And stupid wording as follows does nothing to help:
According to BBC news Mahmood or woteva his name is "..was a violent criminal BEFORE he converted to Islam."

This is close to suggesting that ok, he was a piece of shit, but then he found ISLAM and now he is NOT a piece of shit cos he has\had an ideology!!

No, driving a car along a pavement running people over then getting out and stabbing someone to death is not a violent criminal - fckin joke...its TERRORISM OOOOooooooooo!!!! We're sooooo scared.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Harbal »

attofishpi wrote: And stupid wording as follows does nothing to help:
According to BBC news Mahmood or woteva his name is "..was a violent criminal BEFORE he converted to Islam."

This is close to suggesting that ok, he was a piece of shit, but then he found ISLAM and now he is NOT a piece of shit cos he has\had an ideology!!
How do you work that out? If he was a violent criminal before, then that is a fact, the BBC are doing no more than reporting that fact.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Immanuel Can »

It's funny to me that Islam, it is said, does not "cause" terrorism.

Meanwhile, the same people will tell you that Christianity "caused" the Crusades, the Inquisition, the repression of women, slavery, anti-scientism, the Gulf Wars...and the recent loss of Aunt Mathilde's socks under the bed.

Does "religion" actually "cause" something, or not? People need to pick a horse and ride it. Jumping from nag to nag inevitably puts one in the drink. :wink:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote:It's funny to me that Islam, it is said, does not "cause" terrorism.

Meanwhile, the same people will tell you that Christianity "caused" the Crusades, the Inquisition, the repression of women, slavery, anti-scientism, the Gulf Wars...and the recent loss of Aunt Mathilde's socks under the bed.
You're just pulling stuff out of thin air. Who are the people saying this to you?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by attofishpi »

Harbal wrote:
attofishpi wrote: And stupid wording as follows does nothing to help:
According to BBC news Mahmood or woteva his name is "..was a violent criminal BEFORE he converted to Islam."

This is close to suggesting that ok, he was a piece of shit, but then he found ISLAM and now he is NOT a piece of shit cos he has\had an ideology!!
How do you work that out? If he was a violent criminal before, then that is a fact, the BBC are doing no more than reporting that fact.
Its the BEFORE i don't like. As if he is no longer a violent criminal. Should have been worded:-

"Mahmood was found to be a violent criminal that recently became a Muslim." ...denoting he is STILL a violent criminal - would you argue that he was not since becoming a Muslim?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by Harbal »

attofishpi wrote:would you argue that he was not since becoming a Muslim?
I don't think anyone but a terrorist would argue that the man was not a violent criminal, all the BBC are telling you is that he was already a violent criminal to start with, albeit perhaps not on the same scale.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by attofishpi »

Harbal wrote:
attofishpi wrote:would you argue that he was not since becoming a Muslim?
I don't think anyone but a terrorist would argue that the man was not a violent criminal, all the BBC are telling you is that he was already a violent criminal to start with, albeit perhaps not on the same scale.
I would argue from beyond a theist POV (wack-job mode to you) that he will still exist but no longer as man. 666 for 'him'.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Terrorism poses no 'existential' threat?

Post by ForCruxSake »

attofishpi wrote:According to BBC news Mahmood or woteva his name is "..was a violent criminal BEFORE he converted to Islam."

This is close to suggesting that ok, he was a piece of shit, but then he found ISLAM and now he is NOT a piece of shit cos he has\had an ideology!!
Missed out on this piece of reportage, so maybe I'm missing how the point was made... but the words themselves suggest that becoming radicalised did NOT make him a savage nutter, he ALREADY WAS one.

It's been exploding over news and social media.

One post which said:
"Dear America, the London knife attack was committed by s Britsh criminal called Adrian. Thank you"

received the response:
"I think it is indeed significant what he chose to call himself and identify himself as. He rejected English and Chritian notion/ values for Islamic extremism. His choice to do that and change his name accordingly."

My response to that was:
"It's funny how most naturally born Muslims, given Muslim names at birth, who also identify with Islamic notions/values wouldn't do this kind of act. It's wrong to tar Islam with the values this misguided individual has taken them to mean."

When the very English phenomenon of 'skinheads' came into being (-English nutters who kicked the shit out of anyone different, but particularly Black and Asian people) none of the ethnic minorities, or those under attack, claimed that their fascist ideology was representive of all that was English, or English people in general. They weren't. They were just a bunch of racist nutters who wanted to make England white again.

The media would have us believe that the isolated "Islamically radicalised", such as the perpetrator of last week's deaths in Westminster, is representive of an ideology, shared by millions of people who wouldn't dream of hurting others. It's insane and people are buying into it.

Not to rob the situation of its gravitas, this was another post that went up about the incident:
"The man responsible was a 52 year old man from Kent. Coincidentally, Nigel Farage is a 52 year old man from Kent. We need to ban all 52 year old men from Kent until we can sort out this problem. Detain them indefinitely, torture them until they recant their ways and bomb their homes. The tyranny of Kentish born middle aged men must be stopped at the root."

Says it all really.
Post Reply