Sri Lanka Explosions

[goatwack]

I’ve read the satanic versus (quran) it’s a main reason for my stance regarding Islam and all it stands for.
The British media are sickening and clearly biased in favour of Islam.
Clearly it has to be politically based, otherwise no way on earth would anyone condone or tolerate such a bucket of shit.
Not even worthy of being called heathens.

I didn't think it could get lower than Heathens

 

[Playford7]

I didn't think it could get lower than Heathens

It can. I’ll save that for a special moment

 

[TheAddict]

nothing wrong with our media, goat. They worked hard today to bring us some qaulity coverage of big events. they managed to cram the words "celebrating multiculturalism" 5 or 6 times into the 3 minute report of St Georges Day. impressive effort, if you ask me.

 

[goatwack]

nothing wrong with our media, goat. They worked hard today to bring us some qaulity coverage of big events. they managed to cram the words "celebrating multiculturalism" 5 or 6 times into the 3 minute report of St Georges Day. impressive effort, if you ask me.

I think they did a brilliant job on the Climate Change demonstrations, worth every penny watching them interview stoners and the unemployed

 

[TheAddict]

lol. it was tense aye

 

[Playford7]

lol. it was tense aye

Definitely, since that awesome coverage the ice caps have grown in size, the rainforests have been replanted by isis who regret past actions and nickslots has donated his wealth to ‘GA’

 

[goatwack]

I can believe the first two

 

[ternur]

Because it's convenient to propose insanity pleas when in the first two of those examples the attackers knew exactly what they were doing, and why. 'Insanity' is a convenient get-out for both the defendant and the prosecutors who are shit-scared of them putting up a cogent and convincing argument as to their motives, in court, and getting publicity.

That's somewhat beside the point, but it does kind of relate to what I tried to say.

It's not surprising, that events like these are used for political purposes. And at the same feed the circle of violence without an end in sight.

The official narrative changed after 9/11. For example, the term "radicalisation" was rarely used before that. Martha Crenshaw argued in her paper “The causes of terrorism” (1981), that the involving factors were: (a) Individual motivation and belief systems, (b) Decision-making and strategy within a terrorist movement, and (c) The wider political and social context with which terrorist movements interact. Most of today's agendas or policies neglect the last two factors and focus only on the first one.

The US neoconservative Francis Fukuyama warned in 2005 that the "European muslims were as serious a threat to the US as muslims in the Middle East and that Europe’s multiculturalist policies had failed to assimilate the muslim population". The British were exemplary in echoing this US take on radicalisation.

The current official narratives seem to imply that once an individual has adopted an extremist religious ideology, it will result in terrorism, and no other reasons are taken into account (such as political context). But this reasoning is too narrow and is not supported by empirical evidence.

Even the majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And evidence supports the fact, that people who engage in terrorism don’t necessarily hold radical beliefs. Their so called religious beliefs are in many cases extremely thin.

Which leads to to the point I was tried to make: the idea that religious ideology mechanically causes terrorism is not supported by empirical evidence. Oliver Roy has stated: "the process of violent radicalisation has little to do with religious practice, while radical theology, does not necessarily lead to violence [...] the ideology is likely to be part of the way that violent networks articulate their narrative but this by itself is not evidence that religious ideology is causing violence".

And yet again, every time something horrible like this happens, the discussion always seem to go around the "religion of peace" and similar statements. Little or no thought seem to be given to anything else. These arguments seem to serve an agenda and nothing more. They are generalisations and as such cause more harm than good.

But the really disturbing thing with this kind of argumentation is, that when the problem or crime is linked falsely (or too generally) to a wider context, such as religious beliefs, it is used e.g. as a reason to undermine civil liberties along the way. Some may not see this a big problem and say it really doesn't concern them. But in the end it'll have an effect on all of us.

You must be 'insane' to object to multiculturalism and islam, yes?

When something progresses from personal ideology to using guns or bombs to make your point, yes, it most likely can be classified as a form of insanity. Political terrorism, which doesn't differ from the one it is supposedly a reaction to. Objecting multiculturalism and islam through political discurse is quite different from killing innocent people (whether your belief system is based on the bible, quran, q-anon etc.). Some crimes are by their nature a result of a insane mind or pure evil, and at some point the argumentation relating to their sanity really becomes theoretical. Surely someone would not kill dozens of people without a high level of antisocial personality disorder? Whatever their reasons may be.

When it comes to crimical procedure, choosing insanity may be a result of process economy more than prosecutorial bias. It may come down to how difficult one thing is to prove compared to another.

Multiculturalism is a very loaded word. I always view it as inherently negative, mainly because it's usually used in connection with policies and actions that have multiple deleterious side effects on human decency.

At least they'll both rot in jail forever, either way.

No arguments there.