The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
How do white vans feel? Are they suffering from vanism? We have inaccurate comments like "the van drove at us". No, it didn't. Some moron was driving. The white van was entirely innocent. I fear a backlash against white vans. Just because a few white vans have been in terrorist attacks doesn't mean all white vans are terrorists. There's no reason for the van community to apologise. White vans are entirely peaceful and have been so since NATO's special MOT squad managed to take the infamous Astramax off our streets.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
Rather like the muslim community then?
The difference is that some people would expect me to take responsibility/blame if I were a Muslim. That was the rhetorical point.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I think people need to be careful not to conflate race with religion, which seems to be what people do when trying to compare these sorts of events.
As for my input, as a few have said already, hate breeds hate, hopefully this is the last of a shit couple of months but I'm unfortunately more than likely wrong.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I think people need to be careful not to conflate race with religion, which seems to be what people do when trying to compare these sorts of events.
It's not a comparison. It's a rhetorical point about the differing response.
Note how some people who were outraged and very active on other threads about other attacks have hardly commented or not commented at all. In some cases not even to say RIP or to condemn the attacker. It's the double standards over collective responsibility that are being highlighted NOT comparing race with religion
You will see early that someone was predicting a "race war" as an outcome of the attack. Something that I have heard spouted since the 1970s as something that is always five years away. Often said with some relish and wish fulfilment too although i'm not saying that person was doing so.
The point is that saying "all whites" is a stupid as saying "all Muslims".
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I think people need to be careful not to conflate race with religion, which seems to be what people do when trying to compare these sorts of events.
It's not a comparison. It's a rhetorical point about the differing response.
Note how some people who were outraged and very active on other threads about other attacks have hardly commented or not commented at all. In some cases not even to say RIP or to condemn the attacker. It's the double standards over collective responsibility that are being highlighted NOT comparing race with religion
You will see early that someone was predicting a "race war" as an outcome of the attack. Something that I have heard spouted since the 1970s as something that is always five years away. Often said with some relish and wish fulfilment too although i'm not saying that person was doing so.
The point is that saying "all whites" is a stupid as saying "all Muslims".
DING DING DING
I don't understand how hard this is to grasp. Time and time again when this is said, people then go to "but white isn't a religion".
And then we say "yes ofc, 'whiteness' [such as it is] is unbelievably diverse and has many different people and beliefs, and one white person shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of another, just like with religious people"
And then it's back to "but white isn't a religion!"
And we circle round. The cognitive dissonance is sometimes really frustrating, and I don't know whether it's a wind-up; subconscious Islamophobia*; stupidity; or what
(*never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, though - Hanlon's razor)
All this talk of this Terrorist prick being troubled, grinds on me. Every Terrorist is troubled or they wouldn't kill (or attempt to kill) innocents.
Just admit he is a wrong'un and a terrorist. He tried to kill a group of innocents because of their faith, he then continued to mock the Muslims as police led him away, blowing them kisses.
He's absolute scum and was desperate to be a martyr, when he was detained by the Muslim men he allegedly said 'Kill me, see what happens' and 'All Muslims need to die'.
Reciprocal radicalisation. Tick Radicalising media. Tick Charismatic visionaries telling the ' truth ' that the rest of us have yet to wake up to. Tick Corrupt and ineffective government. Tick Public fear. Tick Polarised opinion. Tick Massive economic disparity. Tick Street protests Tick Riots Martial law Sure I read a book like this once.
white isn't a religion, there are what people percieve as a typical white english person, but that isnt the same, not all muslims are the same, the difference imo is that this guy was mentally damaged and not brainwashed, the westminster, manchester and borough market attackers were brainwashed and done it as it was there view of the quran which if taken literally is quite a violent book, most religous books do if you look at them.
The bloke who did it sounds a complete tool - I hope he enjoys his stay in prison.
The great thing about social media is that all the hate filled cockheads in the world can get together and spew forth their bigotry and ignorance - what could possibly go wrong?
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I think people need to be careful not to conflate race with religion, which seems to be what people do when trying to compare these sorts of events.
It's not a comparison. It's a rhetorical point about the differing response.
Note how some people who were outraged and very active on other threads about other attacks have hardly commented or not commented at all. In some cases not even to say RIP or to condemn the attacker. It's the double standards over collective responsibility that are being highlighted NOT comparing race with religion
You will see early that someone was predicting a "race war" as an outcome of the attack. Something that I have heard spouted since the 1970s as something that is always five years away. Often said with some relish and wish fulfilment too although i'm not saying that person was doing so.
The point is that saying "all whites" is a stupid as saying "all Muslims".
Absolutely spot on. And I fully agree it is very telling that a number of posters who were very active in the other threads have nothing to say.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Agree with the point and I would imagine the government have taken a similar view. It has been called a terrorist incident and the prime minister, leader of the opposition and the mayor of London have all condemned it. So essentially our community leaders have commented and condemned the actions of this hate-filled (i am assuming) person.
The point of the parallels being drawn with "getting the leaders of the white community to condemn this act" etc is that it is precisely what happens every time there's a terror attack done by Islamists in the West. The "Muslim community must condemn this" and generally they do. But the Muslims I know don't get why it's only them who get asked it and why it's not taken as a given. Why it is that when white racists carry out these attacks there isn't the same response and a lot of the time it's not even called terrorism when a white bloke does it, he's always a lone wolf. I don't think anyone drawing these parallels thinks it's true - it's a rhetorical device. (I could be wrong of course)
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Is 'white' an ideology? Also, is there such a thing as 'the white community'? do we/they have community leaders? does 'white' have places of worship where an ideological 'white' belief is taught?
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I think people need to be careful not to conflate race with religion, which seems to be what people do when trying to compare these sorts of events.
It's not a comparison. It's a rhetorical point about the differing response.
Note how some people who were outraged and very active on other threads about other attacks have hardly commented or not commented at all. In some cases not even to say RIP or to condemn the attacker. It's the double standards over collective responsibility that are being highlighted NOT comparing race with religion
You will see early that someone was predicting a "race war" as an outcome of the attack. Something that I have heard spouted since the 1970s as something that is always five years away. Often said with some relish and wish fulfilment too although i'm not saying that person was doing so.
The point is that saying "all whites" is a stupid as saying "all Muslims".
Absolutely spot on. And I fully agree it is very telling that a number of posters who were very active in the other threads have nothing to say.
Actually, if you take note of numerous requests from admin to keep personal feuds away from serious/sensitive threads then I'm sure myself and others recently have purposefully kept away from this sort of thread for the greater good.
white isn't a religion, there are what people percieve as a typical white english person, but that isnt the same, not all muslims are the same, the difference imo is that this guy was mentally damaged and not brainwashed, the westminster, manchester and borough market attackers were brainwashed and done it as it was there view of the quran which if taken literally is quite a violent book, most religous books do if you look at them.
You've determined the motives of six different people, in four terrorist attacks and neatly differentiated "mentally damaged" with "brainwashed". And you've done all this psychological sleuthing without meeting any of them, hearing any of them speak or having access to anything they have said after the event. You're completely certain of your convictions, despite having no actual evidence that any of them read the Qur'an and, in at least one case, not knowing their religion.
Some might agree with you and say that you have great insight and intuition.
And others might think you're influenced by prejudice.
white isn't a religion, there are what people percieve as a typical white english person, but that isnt the same, not all muslims are the same, the difference imo is that this guy was mentally damaged and not brainwashed, the westminster, manchester and borough market attackers were brainwashed and done it as it was there view of the quran which if taken literally is quite a violent book, most religous books do if you look at them.
You've determined the motives of six different people, in four terrorist attacks and neatly differentiated "mentally damaged" with "brainwashed". And you've done all this psychological sleuthing without meeting any of them, hearing any of them speak or having access to anything they have said after the event. You're completely certain of your convictions, despite having no actual evidence that any of them read the Qur'an and, in at least one case, not knowing their religion.
Some might agree with you and say that you have great insight and intuition.
And others might think you're influenced by prejudice.
i would say i'm pretty bang on with 5 of the 6 being motivated to be what they percieved to be there understanding of a religous book, the mosque attack could of been religously motivated there are extremists in every religion, there is a religously motivated crime and a racist motivated crime, in my opinion the latest attack being the latter.
for the record people can think what they want its a forum where we discuss stuff isnt it?, not every comment needs your seal of approval.
white isn't a religion, there are what people percieve as a typical white english person, but that isnt the same, not all muslims are the same, the difference imo is that this guy was mentally damaged and not brainwashed, the westminster, manchester and borough market attackers were brainwashed and done it as it was there view of the quran which if taken literally is quite a violent book, most religous books do if you look at them.
You've determined the motives of six different people, in four terrorist attacks and neatly differentiated "mentally damaged" with "brainwashed". And you've done all this psychological sleuthing without meeting any of them, hearing any of them speak or having access to anything they have said after the event. You're completely certain of your convictions, despite having no actual evidence that any of them read the Qur'an and, in at least one case, not knowing their religion.
Some might agree with you and say that you have great insight and intuition.
And others might think you're influenced by prejudice.
i would say i'm pretty bang on with 5 of the 6 being motivated to be what they percieved to be there understanding of a religous book, the mosque attack could of been religously motivated there are extremists in every religion, there is a religously motivated crime and a racist motivated crime, in my opinion the latest attack being the latter.
white isn't a religion, there are what people percieve as a typical white english person, but that isnt the same, not all muslims are the same, the difference imo is that this guy was mentally damaged and not brainwashed, the westminster, manchester and borough market attackers were brainwashed and done it as it was there view of the quran which if taken literally is quite a violent book, most religous books do if you look at them.
You've determined the motives of six different people, in four terrorist attacks and neatly differentiated "mentally damaged" with "brainwashed". And you've done all this psychological sleuthing without meeting any of them, hearing any of them speak or having access to anything they have said after the event. You're completely certain of your convictions, despite having no actual evidence that any of them read the Qur'an and, in at least one case, not knowing their religion.
Some might agree with you and say that you have great insight and intuition.
And others might think you're influenced by prejudice.
i would say i'm pretty bang on with 5 of the 6 being motivated to be what they percieved to be there understanding of a religous book, the mosque attack could of been religously motivated there are extremists in every religion, there is a religously motivated crime and a racist motivated crime, in my opinion the latest attack being the latter.
Comments
The elephant in the room is that most Muslims know where the hate-preachers are funded from and the particular strain of fundamentalist Islam that is the best funded across the Islamic world is the promoted ideology of the house of Saud. And no one is going to bite that particular hand - not the mosques, and certainly not the western governments who are allied to Saudi Arabia.
Not looking for an argument but I just don't get the parallels at all.
The "white" community is very diverse and so while being a white British middle aged man myself I don't feel any responsibility for what another British white middle aged man did and no one expects me to. That was the point.
I fear a backlash against white vans. Just because a few white vans have been in terrorist attacks doesn't mean all white vans are terrorists. There's no reason for the van community to apologise. White vans are entirely peaceful and have been so since NATO's special MOT squad managed to take the infamous Astramax off our streets.
How comes I've not seen you worrying about Christianophobia since this attack happened, it's almost like you've an agenda..
I think Plaid Cymru has a lot to answer for...
Subjectivism.
Note how some people who were outraged and very active on other threads about other attacks have hardly commented or not commented at all. In some cases not even to say RIP or to condemn the attacker. It's the double standards over collective responsibility that are being highlighted NOT comparing race with religion
You will see early that someone was predicting a "race war" as an outcome of the attack. Something that I have heard spouted since the 1970s as something that is always five years away. Often said with some relish and wish fulfilment too although i'm not saying that person was doing so.
The point is that saying "all whites" is a stupid as saying "all Muslims".
I don't understand how hard this is to grasp. Time and time again when this is said, people then go to "but white isn't a religion".
And then we say "yes ofc, 'whiteness' [such as it is] is unbelievably diverse and has many different people and beliefs, and one white person shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of another, just like with religious people"
And then it's back to "but white isn't a religion!"
And we circle round. The cognitive dissonance is sometimes really frustrating, and I don't know whether it's a wind-up; subconscious Islamophobia*; stupidity; or what
(*never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, though - Hanlon's razor)
Just admit he is a wrong'un and a terrorist. He tried to kill a group of innocents because of their faith, he then continued to mock the Muslims as police led him away, blowing them kisses.
He's absolute scum and was desperate to be a martyr, when he was detained by the Muslim men he allegedly said 'Kill me, see what happens' and 'All Muslims need to die'.
Radicalising media. Tick
Charismatic visionaries telling the ' truth ' that the rest of us have yet to wake up to. Tick
Corrupt and ineffective government. Tick
Public fear. Tick
Polarised opinion. Tick
Massive economic disparity. Tick
Street protests Tick
Riots
Martial law
Sure I read a book like this once.
The great thing about social media is that all the hate filled cockheads in the world can get together and spew forth their bigotry and ignorance - what could possibly go wrong?
Some might agree with you and say that you have great insight and intuition.
And others might think you're influenced by prejudice.
for the record people can think what they want its a forum where we discuss stuff isnt it?, not every comment needs your seal of approval.