Society/Culture Finsbury Park Mosque terror attack

[Xsess]

Sure... you don't see it as a race... you just want to kick them out of this country...

Who, what? ....the

 

[Demons09]

Sure... you don't see it as a race... you just want to kick them out of this country...

And even if that were true it's not racist thiugh is it.

 

[CM86]

And even if that were true it's not racist thiugh is it.

Where should we kick an Australian born Muslim out to?

And pause and think before you say "wherever their parents came from"

 

[BEaston]

Suck s**t Fascist

Embarrassing.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

This event is just going to give more incentives for dissolutioned young muslims to turn to ISIS. What a sad fate London has.

 

[Gough]

This event is just going to give more incentives for dissolutioned young muslims to turn to ISIS. What a sad fate London has.

What fate is that mate? It's also worth considering before you predict some sort of apocalyptic nightmare that London has been about in one form or another since the first century AD has survived much worse this before.

 

[The Edukator]

You only need to check the Britain First page to see how many so called patriots are applauding this attack. Absolute animals

I think most of us rational ones on the 'right' will denounce these kinds of attacks whilst a far larger portion of the 'left' will not condemn them when the victims and roles are reversed.

 

[radiojake]

ah yes - we all need to make official announcements that show that we actively condemn terrorist attacks - preferably on twitter or facebook

 

[Xsess]

What fate is that mate? It's also worth considering before you predict some sort of apocalyptic nightmare that London has been about in one form or another since the first century AD has survived much worse this before.

Sporadic but escalating civil war. Attack following attack and a cycle of blood and violence erupting into appalling permanency. Social breakdown and pockets of extreme poverty. No go areas split down ideological and racial lines. Yes this is already happening but likewise yes, it will rapidly worsen now as predicted in stunning clarity some 50 years ago.

 

[CM86]

Embarrassing.

He's a protected species.

 

[Malifice]

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you implying that a black Australian being racist towards a white Australian is somehow a 'lesser' degree of racism? This is what I would be interested in hearing you expand on how that is the case.

Yes I am, because of context.

Its not the same thing for an Aboriginal Australian to walk up to me and call me a 'White devil' as it is for me to walk up to him and call him an 'Abo' or worse. Both are examples of racial vilification, but both occur within different context.

That context is that 'white' Australians have far more power than aboriginal Australians, and suffer from far (far) less socio-economic disadvantage, and there is the further historical context of aboriginal people being oppressed, displaced and marginalised (to a huge degree) by white colonial powers.

Race exists, but only as a social construct. Postodernism highlights that how we construct the concept of race not only hinges (and depends) on agreed interpretation (and thus context) it also exists within a broader external context.

The acts are the same, but the context surrounding each act make them different in severity.

For a clumsy example, consider a punch. If you were charged with a crime of belting someone (common assault), the context surrounding that crime would assist in determining the punishment you get. If you're a 100kg and 25 year old male bodybuilder clocking an old defenceless 45kg and 80 year old woman, you would probably inflict more damage with the punch, and recieve a higher punishment from the courts then if the reverse happened (and she clocked you).

 

[Fryman]

More a basic commentary, because I don't really bother contributing to these conversation, but I have noticed the word "jihad" gets attributed to terrorism a lot here. Please don't. Attributing jihadism to extremism only helps terrorist groups. Jihadism is glorified in the religion, but jihadism does not allow violence against innocents. The misuse of the word jihad is to the benefit of extremist groups, and to the peril of everyone else. It's such a simple thing too.

What makes you think they view Western Christians as innocents?

 

[Malifice]

What makes you think they view Western Christians as innocents?

One of 'they' just stepped in to protect a 'Western Christian' who had just run down a dozen of 'them' in front of a Mosque, kiling at least one.

Its safe to say that 'they' arent all bad. Only a small minority are.

 

[Malifice]

And so because ISIS have suddenly ruled 'any retaliation against our barbaric atrocities is a vote against Islam' we must abide by their rules of engagement?

Who is 'we'?

And arent you using the same logic as ISIS here?

I don't really see Islam as a whole come out to publicly pour scorn on ISIS.

Can you point me to 'Islam as a whole'? Seeing as it doesnt exist, Im kinda struggling to see how 'it' can pour scorn on ISIS.

Would you consider 1.5 million Muslims and 70,000 Clerics enough?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea

How about this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...aders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

 

[Fryman]

One of 'they' just stepped in to protect a 'Western Christian' who had just run down a dozen of 'them' in front of a Mosque, kiling at least one.

Its safe to say that 'they' arent all bad. Only a small minority are.

I thought it was fairly obvious that by 'they' I was referring to the Islamic terrorists and not the whole Muslim community.

 

[Malifice]

I thought it was fairly obvious that by 'they' I was referring to the Islamic terrorists and not the whole Muslim community.

The terrorists certainly dont view Christians as innocents. Not even 14 year old girls.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Can you point me to 'Islam as a whole'? Seeing as it doesnt exist, Im kinda struggling to see how 'it' can pour scorn on ISIS.

Would you consider 1.5 million Muslims and 70,000 Clerics enough?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea

How about this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...aders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

I applaud that initiative by the clerics, and hope it is picked up by the mainstream media. First I've heard of it.

 

[Malifice]

I applaud that initiative by the clerics, and hope it is picked up by the mainstream media. First I've heard of it.

Bolded the reason why you havent heard about it above.

 

[Fryman]

The terrorists certainly dont view Christians as innocents. Not even 14 year old girls.

That was my point. They are able to rationalise it as a Jihad because to them the people they attack aren't innocent.

 

[SSwans2011]

What makes you think they view Western Christians as innocents?

That's a terrorist's interpretation though. It's not befitting of the religion.

I thought it was fairly obvious that by 'they' I was referring to the Islamic terrorists and not the whole Muslim community.

If a Christian killed non-Christians and claimed it was a missionary act, would it be correct to refer to it as such? Granted, "missionary" is a more loose term than "jihad".

 

[twotooto]

Yes I am, because of context.

Its not the same thing for an Aboriginal Australian to walk up to me and call me a 'White devil' as it is for me to walk up to him and call him an 'Abo' or worse. Both are examples of racial vilification, but both occur within different context.

That context is that 'white' Australians have far more power than aboriginal Australians, and suffer from far (far) less socio-economic disadvantage, and there is the further historical context of aboriginal people being oppressed, displaced and marginalised (to a huge degree) by white colonial powers.

Race exists, but only as a social construct. Postodernism highlights that how we construct the concept of race not only hinges (and depends) on agreed interpretation (and thus context) it also exists within a broader external context.

The acts are the same, but the context surrounding each act make them different in severity.

For a clumsy example, consider a punch. If you were charged with a crime of belting someone (common assault), the context surrounding that crime would assist in determining the punishment you get. If you're a 100kg and 25 year old male bodybuilder clocking an old defenceless 45kg and 80 year old woman, you would probably inflict more damage with the punch, and recieve a higher punishment from the courts then if the reverse happened (and she clocked you).

Ok, thanks for the response. Imo, this is an interesting discussion - perhaps it deserves its own thread.

In my original post to you, I quoted yourself on two separate occasions. For context, these are the two posts I quoted;

The first one in the, "What is and isn't racist/racism?" thread, is as follows -

"Racism for mine can be reduced to: Attributing traits to another based on the fallacy of 'biological race'

We're all guilty of it to some degree. It gets problematic when those falacies are then used as justification for discrimination."

The second, in this thread -

"In a way that a black Australian being racist to a white Australian isnt the same as vice versa. The crimes are the same, but context is (as always) important."

So with those two posts, are you not contradicting yourself? In the first you say that racism is discrimination based on the fallacy of biological race and in the second you say that it's ok for a race to be racist because one of the races is a perceived minority that has historically got the rough end of the pineapple.

To further clarify, you are essentially saying that it's ok(or less bad) for an indigenous Australian to be racist towards a white Australian exactly because of the fallacy of biological race. In other words, you are contradicting yourself.

You then use an example to explain your position. Here is the quote, for context -

"For a clumsy example, consider a punch. If you were charged with a crime of belting someone (common assault), the context surrounding that crime would assist in determining the punishment you get. If you're a 100kg and 25 year old male bodybuilder clocking an old defenceless 45kg and 80 year old woman, you would probably inflict more damage with the punch, and recieve a higher punishment from the courts then if the reverse happened (and she clocked you)."

Referencing that quote, let's just say the body builder is an indigenous Australian. He's university educated and currently employed in a high paying job. Does that mean because he's an indigenous Australian he should receive less punishment just because he's come from an historical 'position of less socio-economic advantage'?

Does the fact that he - a 100kg, 25 yr old male bodybuilder who assaulted a 45kg, 80yr pensioner - is indigenous in any way make the assault 'lesser'? Seriously? Because that's what you are essentially saying.

Let me use a 'clumsy' example of my own. Let's say you've got an 8 yr old boy. You get a call from his teacher saying that he racially vilified a black Australian at school and that he, imo rightfully, will be pulled up on it. A week later he comes home from school and says he was racially vilified by a black Australian but the teacher said he should just cop it because of context.

Do you think your kid is going to be able to grasp that?

I think what you are doing is you're applying subjective, emotive controls to something that is, imo, very cut and dried. Racism, in any form, is wrong.

Also it's important to note that discrimination and racism are different things.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Sporadic but escalating civil war. Attack following attack and a cycle of blood and violence erupting into appalling permanency. Social breakdown and pockets of extreme poverty. No go areas split down ideological and racial lines. Yes this is already happening but likewise yes, it will rapidly worsen now as predicted in stunning clarity some 50 years ago.

That is unless some brave and noble heroes, modern-day knights really, with shaved heads and white laces on their black stompers band together and start stringing up the foreigners on the nearest handy lamp post and setting them to dance amirite?

 

[Moshie The Mook]

This event is just going to give more incentives for dissolutioned young muslims to turn to ISIS. What a sad fate London has.

Let's face it, the entire philosophy of the Brit revolves around capitulation, and that is why they've lost their whole island to Islam.

If you look at their 18-25 demographic, the most popular name over there now with young people is Muhammed...or Simon.

They seem to form all their policies around who it will least offend. It has proven not to work, and I fear we have lost England forever.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yeah. I agree actually. I detest the Racist Right and all that they stand for, but Malifice, why not let them be damned by their own words? Let them speak their minds and so remove any doubt as to what kind of world they'd rather live in...

EDIT: I keep forgetting there are paying advertisers on this site. They get antsy about certain topics and themes from time to time, I think. Ye Olde Limbo Clubbers would knoweth of what I speak...

There's a big difference between the racist right and what gets blocked on here. And I don't think it's anything to do with the advertisers.

Edit : and posts removed without explanation.

We probably don't agree on things but at least you argue your position not hide behind moderator privileges.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

There was a thread where a poster posted a fantasy about dropping dead muslims over Raqqa from a plane. There are calls in this forum for genocide and mass internment after every terrorist attack.

What is it you want to say that you can't already?