The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
If he had a good point to make, he could have - should have - chosen a better way to make it. That's my opinion. Although, as you point out, my opinion holds no water.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
Rob wasn't trivialising it, that's the point that you are spectacularly missing.
Shouting falsehoods loudly doesn't make your opinion any more valid as you've still yet to ask Rob to explain the context behind what he said. You've jumped two-footed into the 'this is what he said and this is what he meant, in my opinion' argument.
You're also letting emotion overtake rational thought.
This thread is about a terrorist shooting incident, not about drink driving.
In my view, we should not be any more worried about acts of terrorism that we were (those of us who were around) in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The threat now comes from a different direction, but it's less frequent than it was.
We should all be aware, but not in fear. We should all be vigilant, but not cowed. And we should all do what we can to reduce barriers between people, not build them up.
I don't ever remember seeing you saying the same thing to those that have posted up tweets using similar analogies whereby they compare the deaths from terrorism to, say, the deaths caused by toaster usage.
I could well be wrong but I'd stick my neck out and say that you haven't.
So, someone's wife gets killed by a drunk driver and the ever charming Rob still calls him a snowflake.
Classy, real fucking classy.
I'm at work and have only been scanning the posts, so I only just realised why Chizz found it offensive. I've sent him an apology and removed the posts.
The big man wasn't 'joking' about the topic, though, was he? He was showing just how ludicrous the analogies are.
You knew that though, didn't you?
In your opinion, why do/did you believe that Rob was joking about drink driving and not, as is very obvious to the unbiased eye, highlighting the evident daftness in the analogies being made?
In my opinion, a pathetic attempt to trivialise drink driving should be shown up as what it is. Pointless, unfunny and irrelevant.
There may well have been ludicrous analagoies made on this thread. But none as stupid and hurtful as that one. But, thanks for asking my opinion.
You're working on the assumption that that is exactly what Rob was doing. You've decided what the context of his post was without even asking him to explain the context. You then jumped all over what he said in an apparent attempt at discrediting him.
So, in this instance, your opinion holds no water due to you completely missing the point Rob was making.
If he had a good point to make, he could have - should have - chosen a better way to make it. That's my opinion. Although, as you point out, my opinion holds no water.
So, on that basis, carry on. Conflate terrorism with drink driving. Trivialise the conversation with "funny" videos. Move the debate away from the interesting, well-structured discussions involving people with opposing views, with fascinating experience, and towards cheap, stupid gags about a different subject.
I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving. And I've called people out on it since my wife was killed by someone who did exactly that.
Rob wasn't trivialising it, that's the point that you are spectacularly missing.
Shouting falsehoods loudly doesn't make your opinion any more valid as you've still yet to ask Rob to explain the context behind what he said. You've jumped two-footed into the 'this is what he said and this is what he meant, in my opinion' argument.
You're also letting emotion overtake rational thought.
This thread is about a terrorist shooting incident, not about drink driving.
In my view, we should not be any more worried about acts of terrorism that we were (those of us who were around) in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The threat now comes from a different direction, but it's less frequent than it was.
We should all be aware, but not in fear. We should all be vigilant, but not cowed. And we should all do what we can to reduce barriers between people, not build them up.
I don't ever remember seeing you saying the same thing to those that have posted up tweets using similar analogies whereby they compare the deaths from terrorism to, say, the deaths caused by toaster usage.
I could well be wrong but I'd stick my neck out and say that you haven't.
Someone said something inappropriate about drink driving. That was wrong and I pointed it out. If you want me to repeat what I think about it, I will: I don't like people trivialising or joking about drink driving.
I've never had a problem with people talking about toasters.
This thread is about a terrorist incident in Paris. It's appropriate to discuss some ways in which people might react to it. Some topics aren't appropriate.
You may think it's totally ok to say you're going to go drink driving. I don't. You and I disagree on that point, but I don't feel the need to fall out about it.
Final point (I hope): it's not "offensive" to joke about drink driving, it's dangerous and stupid.
For those attempting to use the flawed 'you're more likely to' analogy/logic when it comes to terrorism and other crimes/occurences that create victims.
No one is saying "do not be concerned about terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is, "please understand this in comparison to other things." Again, here in the US a desire to kill people is by no means limited to Islamic Jihadism. We have a litany of terror groups and terrorist incidents, they're just not called that because the people who carry them out aren't always brown. We also have a multi-billion dollar weapons industry and lobby that keeps guns legal and gun deaths at over 33,000 per year. And you have special interest groups, namely the NRA, who actively fight to prevent any and all attempts to curb this violence, including simple background checks, a limit on the types of weapons that can be bought, etc. If you want your "malicious toaster," this is it. Including 9/11, the USS Cole, and the Kenyan Embassy bombings (all Al Qaeda acts) does not change how skewed the statistics are.
Again, this could be a cultural difference, some of which is down to the diversity of attacks we have here in the States. For me, at 13 about to go into high school, Columbine (and subsequent numerous school shootings) presented a far more real and present danger (suburban kids shooting up their school) than the attacks in New York and Washington on 9/11 did, as NYC and DC are ~3,000 miles away and I'd never been to either.
Who is better placed to lead France through a period of fear, division and uncertaity brought by terrorist action in their main cities? Macron or Le Pen?
Who is better placed to lead France through a period of fear, division and uncertaity brought by terrorist action in their main cities? Macron or Le Pen?
Neither inspire confidence as to how they handle the terrorism issue.
Completely missing that attacks like the Bataclan have required no sophisticated tech - in fact relying upon crappy old burner PAYG phones - whilst also appearing to give a very defeatist and dreary admission that these attacks will.. well.. continue.
Whilst Le Pen hammers on about immigration, completely ignoring the fact that France and Belgium both seem to have a large domestic radicalisation problem, and she also possesses a history of making statements that will further enrage the Muslim community - thus increasing the likelihood of a continued cycle of radicalisation.
I don't feel much envy towards the French on this particular subject.
I was shocked to read of the tragic death of your wife. It must have been, and still be, unspeakably painful (as it was for my wife when she lost her father in a car crash where criminal negligence both by a lorry driver and State officials was obvious but never punished).
Sometimes I think we all skim read comments, and certainly I had to go back and make sure I read that right. I was glad that once @i_b_b_o_r_g read it, he retracted his comment and sent you a message.
It is a phrase we have to use too often, but I am sorry for your loss. I hope no-one else on here ever has to bear such an avoidable loss.
a car has driven into a police van on the champs Elysees. it then burst into flames killing the driver. guns and grenades were found in the car. no other casualties.
edit: wasn't sure whether to create a new thread for this as I know the title of this one is misleading but I remember previous threads being closed on an attack a month ago. the bbc article references the attack back in April which this thread is about.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Edit: FWIW, all it seems you've done is try to make my comment taboo by attempting to make others weigh up the facts against your emotionally charged hyperbole, in the hope that facts are trumped by feelings and a want to not highlight religious extremism for fear of being accused of clambering over bodies.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
"I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head."
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
"I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head."
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
Political allegiance/leanings has nothing to do with it.
No point scoring going on here but, yes, you're right, it was highlighted for a reason. That reason being how some treat some events different than they do other events.
It's again highlighting the level of hyocrisy that some can't see themselves espousing.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
"I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head."
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
Political allegiance/leanings has nothing to do with it.
No point scoring going on here but, yes, you're right, it was highlighted for a reason. That reason being how some treat some events different than they do other events.
It's again highlighting the level of hyocrisy that some can't see themselves espousing.
To be fair, I think you're right. Reading back what I've written, it reads that I am indeed using the bodies myself - I maintain that you did too in that first post, though I'm sure many disagree - but I certainly have.
Taken me a while to see my hypocrisy, but yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(NB this isn't sarcasm or anything, fair points well made. I actually think we agree on this - Islamism is an issue - but I didn't like the way you made your point, essentially, and thus have taken things too belligerently. All part of the learning curve)
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
"I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head."
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
Political allegiance/leanings has nothing to do with it.
No point scoring going on here but, yes, you're right, it was highlighted for a reason. That reason being how some treat some events different than they do other events.
It's again highlighting the level of hyocrisy that some can't see themselves espousing.
To be fair, I think you're right. Reading back what I've written, it reads that I am indeed using the bodies myself - I maintain that you did too in that first post, though I'm sure many disagree - but I certainly have.
Taken me a while to see my hypocrisy, but yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(NB this isn't sarcasm or anything, fair points well made. I actually think we agree on this - Islamism is an issue - but I didn't like the way you made your point, essentially, and thus have taken things too belligerently. All part of the learning curve)
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
What happened in France was awful. There's not two ways around that. And I don't say this to sound glib or trite, but three dead is a Tuesday in an American high school shooting and I genuinely had to remind myself that this is not normal in other countries when I saw the news.
Known to the authorities. Pledging allegiance to Daesh. Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Clambering over the bodies to get your point in I see
Making a false claim, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, to get your point in. Par for the course.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Well, here's the thing. Your initial points are valid. The facts of the case are indeed the facts of the case. It's just the second paragraph about waiting for all the evidence coming to light, that is meant as a little bit of a cheeky rod out there for me, Leuth, or SD, or whoever to nibble on.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
I don't consider this to be a left vs right thing at all, and have never made that distinction. That's just you adding yet another layer to justify the clambering comment.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
"I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head."
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
Political allegiance/leanings has nothing to do with it.
No point scoring going on here but, yes, you're right, it was highlighted for a reason. That reason being how some treat some events different than they do other events.
It's again highlighting the level of hyocrisy that some can't see themselves espousing.
To be fair, I think you're right. Reading back what I've written, it reads that I am indeed using the bodies myself - I maintain that you did too in that first post, though I'm sure many disagree - but I certainly have.
Taken me a while to see my hypocrisy, but yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(NB this isn't sarcasm or anything, fair points well made. I actually think we agree on this - Islamism is an issue - but I didn't like the way you made your point, essentially, and thus have taken things too belligerently. All part of the learning curve)
Comments
Classy, real fucking classy.
I could well be wrong but I'd stick my neck out and say that you haven't.
I've never had a problem with people talking about toasters.
This thread is about a terrorist incident in Paris. It's appropriate to discuss some ways in which people might react to it. Some topics aren't appropriate.
You may think it's totally ok to say you're going to go drink driving. I don't. You and I disagree on that point, but I don't feel the need to fall out about it.
Final point (I hope): it's not "offensive" to joke about drink driving, it's dangerous and stupid.
No one is saying "do not be concerned about terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is, "please understand this in comparison to other things." Again, here in the US a desire to kill people is by no means limited to Islamic Jihadism. We have a litany of terror groups and terrorist incidents, they're just not called that because the people who carry them out aren't always brown. We also have a multi-billion dollar weapons industry and lobby that keeps guns legal and gun deaths at over 33,000 per year. And you have special interest groups, namely the NRA, who actively fight to prevent any and all attempts to curb this violence, including simple background checks, a limit on the types of weapons that can be bought, etc. If you want your "malicious toaster," this is it. Including 9/11, the USS Cole, and the Kenyan Embassy bombings (all Al Qaeda acts) does not change how skewed the statistics are.
Again, this could be a cultural difference, some of which is down to the diversity of attacks we have here in the States. For me, at 13 about to go into high school, Columbine (and subsequent numerous school shootings) presented a far more real and present danger (suburban kids shooting up their school) than the attacks in New York and Washington on 9/11 did, as NYC and DC are ~3,000 miles away and I'd never been to either.
Macron has come out by saying he's keen to "tackle tech companies" - a complete non-starter - and has labelled terrorism as an "imponderable problem" which will continue to be "part of our daily lives for the years to come".
Completely missing that attacks like the Bataclan have required no sophisticated tech - in fact relying upon crappy old burner PAYG phones - whilst also appearing to give a very defeatist and dreary admission that these attacks will.. well.. continue.
Whilst Le Pen hammers on about immigration, completely ignoring the fact that France and Belgium both seem to have a large domestic radicalisation problem, and she also possesses a history of making statements that will further enrage the Muslim community - thus increasing the likelihood of a continued cycle of radicalisation.
I don't feel much envy towards the French on this particular subject.
I was shocked to read of the tragic death of your wife. It must have been, and still be, unspeakably painful (as it was for my wife when she lost her father in a car crash where criminal negligence both by a lorry driver and State officials was obvious but never punished).
Sometimes I think we all skim read comments, and certainly I had to go back and make sure I read that right. I was glad that once @i_b_b_o_r_g read it, he retracted his comment and sent you a message.
It is a phrase we have to use too often, but I am sorry for your loss. I hope no-one else on here ever has to bear such an avoidable loss.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40332532
edit: wasn't sure whether to create a new thread for this as I know the title of this one is misleading but I remember previous threads being closed on an attack a month ago. the bbc article references the attack back in April which this thread is about.
Thankfully they're not out there at the moment
Pledging allegiance to Daesh.
Requested the release of Salah Abdeslam.
I shall wait for all the evidence to come to light before concluding that he was a resident of France and that he wasn't well in the head.
Now that we've rubbished your ludicrous claim above, would you be kind enough to demonstrate how you believe I have 'clambered over bodies' by pointing out the facts from every news report on the story?
Which fact do you dispute?
Shootings in America equates to Americans are batshit mental.
Murders in European countries by religiously motivate people equates to 'dont call it out as it doesn't sit well with me'. If this was about a shooting in America you'd be a bastion of virtue and would be offering up all the shortcomings. Of course you wouldn't consider yourself to be clambering over bodies in such an instance.
Edit: FWIW, all it seems you've done is try to make my comment taboo by attempting to make others weigh up the facts against your emotionally charged hyperbole, in the hope that facts are trumped by feelings and a want to not highlight religious extremism for fear of being accused of clambering over bodies.
Shame on you for using those bodies yourself.
Because you didn't actually wait - you simply could not resist making a snide remark that implies "oh all you lefty libtards are so scared to blame religion".
And this happened, what, within a couple of hours of reports coming out? Yeah, I've used emotive language to express my annoyance, but I think I have a point (otherwise I wouldn't have made it, I suppose).
Where did I dispute a fact? My position is absolutely clear on attacks like this - Islamism is a massive problem.
However.
I always, always point out that Islamism =/= Islam, because sadly, too many people conflate the two.
Re America - I've not actually mentioned that much on the topic. The only thing I do is repost that Onion article ("No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens").
And the last post I made, you bizarrely accused me of virtue signalling basically?! See that thread here.
You leave me very confused. You don't make much sense.
So, I'll ask again, how have I 'clambered over bodies?
You remember writing that, yes?
I mean, I might be wrong, and you *genuinely* might eventually come to the conclusion that this was down to mental illness, but I would read it differently. I would read this as you implying that certain people (like me - given I'm a dyed in the wool liberal - or whoever else) are reticent to blame religious motivations for fear of being seen as racist/Islamophobe.
In making a remark like that, so soon after people have died, seems to me like you're point scoring in the whole "Islamism isn't a cause, it's down to mental illness" circle.
Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to be a subtle implied criticism of those who wouldn't blame religious extremism.
No point scoring going on here but, yes, you're right, it was highlighted for a reason. That reason being how some treat some events different than they do other events.
It's again highlighting the level of hyocrisy that some can't see themselves espousing.
Taken me a while to see my hypocrisy, but yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(NB this isn't sarcasm or anything, fair points well made. I actually think we agree on this - Islamism is an issue - but I didn't like the way you made your point, essentially, and thus have taken things too belligerently. All part of the learning curve)
I'll certainly take in to consideration the points you raise.