Vehicle driven into people in Stockholm-Please refrain from speculative and antagonistic posts

Oh really, you people spout the same ****, it is not just a matter of people being killed is statistically very small, you think we don't know that? Are we not allowed to be worried about all the countries that these ******** are hitting and all the people that lose their lives because of the same ********?

This is not just about it being a small chance of being blown up, shot or stabbed etc by these ********, it is the fact that ours and various other countries way of life is gradually changing, because of these ********.

It needs to stop, by whatever means necessary.

It took two Atom bombs to stop the last lot of ******* (Japan), those people were not afraid to die because of their beliefs\cause.
We have the same problem now...

No one is saying that deaths due to terrorism aren't bad. What we are saying is you need to step back a bit and look at relative risk.

Any death caused by a terrorist is bad, but we shouldn't let them "win" by changing our way of life to accommodate a threat that is perceived to be much bigger than it is. The problem at the moment appears to be we are getting so worried about one type of terrorism, we are giving it undue care and attention.

We also shouldn't be using a warped perception of the threat as an excuse to target others that only share a nation of origin, skin colour or religious affiliation, which seems to be becoming more and more prevalent. All you do there is further the aims of these terrorist groups.

Although the latter half of your post appears to be less about terrorism and more about your worry of "change". Is your fascination with Islamic terrorism less about the deaths, more about the fact it's to do with Islam and foreigners, which somehow means deaths due to them are more important than your "boring" nationalist or left/right winger?

Aye, let the usual apologists keep throwing their graphs and stats around, i can easily put a stat up that shows out of all terrorism, Islamic terrorism has done a whole lot more than any other terror group in the past 100 years atleast.

Go on then, no one is stopping you. That said we have already discussed some of it already - r.e terrorist deaths worldwide over the last 15 years, which is largely confined to five countries - three of the biggest are failed states.

Except they do. Crazy is infamous for it. Anytime you post any negative stat about Islamic terrorism he'll throw up something about the US or Israel. Other posters do the same.

In this thread it's not 'oh bugger this Islamic terror needs to stop' it's 'Well, at least it's not the 70s'.

That would get boring fast, of course Islamic terror needs to stop. It's unlikely anyone is going to contest that.

This thread is actually about a tragic attack that has killed several people, unfortunately it then becomes a thread where people can start airing their complaints about everything from immigrants to Islam to nuking entire regions. I honestly try and avoid them because you know the responses people are going to post (thankfully with the harder moderating over the last year or two some of the most nasty comments are removed), but sometimes the illogic and hysteria of some people draws me in. :(

People need to get a grip or things really will turn sour. We have already had a rise in hate crime against minorities in recent years, which is exactly what this sort of terrorism is meant to achieve. We need to deal with the problem smartly and sensibly, not with a bunch of pitchforks and flaming torches. Sometimes threads like these aren't far off resembling the online equivalent of a barn full of angry locals about to go chase after Frankenstein. A bit of sense and rationality goes a long way IMO.

(Btw that's not aimed at posters like you and dowie. While I disagree with you guys a fair amount of the time you actually back up your comments and we can have sensible, rational discussions).
 
Last edited:
here's an interesting thing.

in the west, uk and usa especially we are, from childhood, conditioned to think of war in "total war" terms. We grow up watching WW2 films and most of our history is about absolute wars among nations with a decided start and end point.

there is Vietnam but that doesn't really seem to have much prominence anymore especially in the uk and America seems to want to forget it as a dirty secret but still it was a campaign marked by carpet bombing and massive firepower.


I think this conditioning/upbringing is partly to blame for the "nuke whole regions" line of thinking, unlike the arab states we are not accustomed to tribal/guerrilla warfare over the course of decades from a superior opponent/government.

For most of us this is a very new and alien concept and people understandably have difficulty processing it and how to deal with it.

How do you deal with scattered hidden lone wolves when you where raised on a concept of the enemy is the enemy you destroy his cities and country, when there is no country, no city or even a discernible distinguished enemy in most cases?


I think people default back to what they know "total war", just we dont have a country to wage it against.
 
Because they come from a study in mid 2016. It takes a while to actually conduct an informed study on this sort of thing so they will always be slightly out of date.

I presume if you have data to refute the studies, that suggests there has been a dramatic increase in terrorism, then you'll be willing to post it?
Not as consistently high as during the 70’s & 80’s (yet), but you knew that when meticulously positioning your goalposts.

terrorism-we-20170322.png


http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015

2016 - present:

A period of increased Islamic terrorist activity in Europe has taken place since 2014.[1][2][3] The increase is often seen as part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War and linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It has also been linked to the rise of radical Islam among some disaffected Muslims in Europe, and to the European migrant crisis.[3][4]

40 attacks
315 deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#List_of_attacks
 
I just read he aimed the truck specifically at kids? :(. If it really is all about taking out anger on actions our government has carried out in the middle east, why go after young kids that aren't even old enough to vote? Its just a senseless waste of life.
 
Whilst you and Azari are posting tit for tat stats that may or may not be true (Stats are only as good as the data inputted into the machine in the first place) all of those are really irrelevant. We have a situation in Europe where Islamic Extremists now appear to be making more frequent attacks. I don't care if the stats say we're safer than ever I don't want these attacks happening at all if they could be prevented. I think we do need to act and sooner rather than later to prevent this situation from growing into something that cannot be controlled. I am not tarring any race or saying that all Muslims should be deported as I do believe there are those who can live in this country and accept our country's ways and culture. Islamic Extremism has no place in the UK, neither does Sharia law. They are simply values and ways that do not fit in with our society and should in no way be accepted. I would at least hope that everyone in this thread at least agrees to that? Anyone found preaching / practicing any of these should either be put away and forgotten about or deported if they do not hold a UK passport. The downside is it only takes one to slip through the net to cause carnage again and I'm not sure exactly how tough the UK would have to be on perpetrators to deter others from trying to come here to promote and practice Islamic Extremism, I think human rights and the Geneva Convention would get in the way of the toughness required as to me Islamic Extremists are nothing but animals that will stop at nothing for the cause they follow.

Agreed, Islamic extremism has no place in the UK, nor pretty much any extremism.

The reality is the law is currently doing what you propose. People preaching extremism are either jailed or jailed and deported if they aren't British.

What I do question is your suggestion that the use of violence is going to help matters. These people are willing to die for their cause. What "toughness" do you anticipate (that will contravene the GC) we will need, and how will you ensure this "toughness" doesn't affect innocent people?

Arazi's idea, as an example, was roundly destroyed in the other thread because not only does it contravene 1000 years of British law and a large part of what makes us "british" in the first place, it will drag in a huge bunch of those that are innocent.

I doubt i would be on a Islamic terror watch list.

Oh, so now we're going back to it only affecting people on a specific part of the watchlist, because remember guys if it's not Islamic terrorism it's not as important...
 
I just read he aimed the truck specifically at kids? :(. If it really is all about taking out anger on actions our government has carried out in the middle east, why go after young kids that aren't even old enough to vote? Its just a senseless waste of life.

because killing kids affects YOU more.
 
out of curiosity is an isis attack (an act performed an behalf of an attempted state/government) political or religious?

in terms of being classified.

Presumably all Isis related attacks are considered religiously motivated, they may consider themselves a state but aren't recognized by anyone.

here's an interesting thing.

in the west, uk and usa especially we are, from childhood, conditioned to think of war in "total war" terms. We grow up watching WW2 films and most of our history is about absolute wars among nations with a decided start and end point.

there is Vietnam but that doesn't really seem to have much prominence anymore especially in the uk and America seems to want to forget it as a dirty secret but still it was a campaign marked by carpet bombing and massive firepower.


I think this conditioning/upbringing is partly to blame for the "nuke whole regions" line of thinking, unlike the arab states we are not accustomed to tribal/guerrilla warfare over the course of decades from a superior opponent/government.

For most of us this is a very new and alien concept and people understandably have difficulty processing it and how to deal with it.

How do you deal with scattered hidden lone wolves when you where raised on a concept of the enemy is the enemy you destroy his cities and country, when there is no country, no city or even a discernible distinguished enemy in most cases?


I think people default back to what they know "total war", just we dont have a country to wage it against.

Sounds reasonable. We as the public always like to think of wars as "clean", go in, "liberate" the population and leave as heros, because we're the "good" guys.

Problem is the reality is a little different, for some we are the good guys, for others we are the bad guys. I think it's also probably related to the idea of nationhood and people becoming more politically motivated. In the past it didn't necessarily matter who the ruler was, you just went about your life and if a ruler changed not much else did, you still lived the same life. Now that's not the case, so you have much more of a vested interest in who leads you.

That said we (the UK specifically, less so the US) have won insurgency wars in the past. It takes time, effort, money and most of all an organized leadership in the country you are in. When we have been successful is when we have gone into an otherwise stable country and helped the ruling government of the time. We did multiple small scale targeted actions and spent as much time on "hearts and minds" as fighting. You win over the support of the majority of the people and isolate those that are against you, slowly forcing them to run out of supplies and people until their resistance crumbles.

Unfortunately that kind of thing takes political will, boots on the ground (and deaths) and a decade or two to do. None of what we are really interested in doing any more it seems.

Not as consistently high as during the 70’s & 80’s (yet), but you knew that when meticulously positioning your goalposts.

terrorism-we-20170322.png


http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015

2016 - present:

A period of increased Islamic terrorist activity in Europe has taken place since 2014.[1][2][3] The increase is often seen as part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War and linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It has also been linked to the rise of radical Islam among some disaffected Muslims in Europe, and to the European migrant crisis.[3][4]

40 attacks
315 deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#List_of_attacks

I'm not meticulously anything. It's the standard method of analyzing statistics. :confused:

If you want to compare peak years then fine, it gives the same result. Deaths are still significantly lower than they were in the past, as your chart shows (which is the same as the other charts).
 
I agree there @Amp34 political will is failing in regards to troops deaths, required for a hearts and minds campaign.

i do wonder if a full withdrawal combined with an increase in "secluded" funding of the arab powers, iraq, Saudi, iran etc would be of benefit tbh
 
Don't let me stop you!
I assume you are aware that the christian Ugandan terrorist group 'The Lord's Resistance Army' has killed significantly more civilians than ISIS. But hey once again don't let facts and reality get in the way of your sweeping generalisation of Islam and Muslims :rolleyes:

DEXqeuX.png


1MYgeh3.png


Source

BTW It is estimated that ISIS has killed approximately 33,000 civilians, so as you can see they have quite a long way to go to get too the numbers of Christian 'The Lord's Resistance Army' terrorist group ;-)

That figure appears to be for the entire civil war, including the massacres by the other side that occured before the LRA was formed and were a large part of the reason for it being formed. It also includes people who died of disease in refugee camps, fleeing the brutality from both sides.

Also relevant:

It's a local, ethnic and nationalist conflict so it's not a global risk.
Nearly all the leaders of the LRA have been killed, it's been completely driven out of Uganda and hardly exists any more.

The sources you refer to (when you refer to sources at all) don't say what you claim they say.
 
I don't agree with Amp or Tefal, I think we are mostly pawns to the establishment, mere minions. Take away the establishment and we would be nothing, just fighting amongst ourselves. We tow the line as we have an opportunity for a decent life style and the consequences if not are unpleasant. So we have a tight system that keeps people in line. To say that, 'we' or 'I' shaped this outcome over the centuries is a bit fragile. We are kept together by a handful of good people who fight to keep things together.
 
I don't agree with Amp or Tefal, I think we are mostly pawns to the establishment, mere minions. Take away the establishment and we would be nothing, just fighting amongst ourselves. We tow the line as we have an opportunity for a decent life style and the consequences if not are unpleasant. So we have a tight system that keeps people in line. To say that, 'we' or 'I' shaped this outcome over the centuries is a bit fragile. We are kept together by a handful of good people who fight to keep things together.


i dont see how tats nin disagreement with me? i'm meerly comenting upomn how the p;opulus sees things.

i agree we have a sytrem the sytenm works for us. but theier system is alien, tribal warefarre is something we've long forgotten.
 
That figure appears to be for the entire civil war, including the massacres by the other side that occured before the LRA was formed and were a large part of the reason for it being formed. It also includes people who died of disease in refugee camps, fleeing the brutality from both sides.

Also relevant:

It's a local, ethnic and nationalist conflict so it's not a global risk.
Nearly all the leaders of the LRA have been killed, it's been completely driven out of Uganda and hardly exists any more.

The sources you refer to (when you refer to sources at all) don't say what you claim they say.

Oh look, crazy was trying to deflect again! Nicely shot down.
 
Oh look, crazy was trying to deflect again! Nicely shot down.

Well it seems that rather than base his opinion on fact he sought out facts to try and support the opinion he'd already got - which mostly seems to be aimed at an apologist/deflection stance re: Islamic terrorism.
 
There is no caliphate, they may want to setup one or are in the process of setting one up. Stabilise the region?? Haha hilarious that is, what did we do in Iraq and Afghanistan?? We messed it up big time there, same with Libya and now Syria to an extent. We aren't interested in stabilising that region, we go in there, overthrow whichever leader is in charge. Then rape the country of its resources if it does have any then we just **** off and leave them to it, not forgetting killing a few thousand innocents as well.

Then we have audacity to ask and wonder why these terrorists are attacking our way of life?

Let me get this straight, regarding the hand wringers in here like you blaming the west, didn't it go something like this, we remove dictators so that the people in these countries can form govt\elections that are fair and suit everyone? Isnt that how it was meant to be? Yes that is how it was meant to be but no, what did the people of these countries do instead? turn on each other that's what and start murdering each other, they all start killing each other over what blend of Islam they follow.

Tell me this, instead of having a civil\sectarian war why not like good citizens would you not try to start living a better life, with better govt and elections that would bring govt services to everyone, isn't that what decent law abiding countries\people do?

So stop blaming the west for all this, same old story, you want to start slagging off the people of these countries, they had the opportunity to fix their countries after being run by a dictator but instead chose to start murdering each other over religious feuds once said dictator has been removed.

Go ahead, pick any of the **** holes in the ME we have meddled in, then show me where any of their citizens have joined together and built a better country and life, the answer is none.
 
He just wanted to show how peaceful he is by murdering 4 people and injuring dozens more.

I'm going to go out now and start punching people in the face, BUT I'M PEACEFUL !
 
Let me get this straight, regarding the hand wringers in here like you blaming the west, didn't it go something like this, we remove dictators so that the people in these countries can form govt\elections that are fair and suit everyone? Isnt that how it was meant to be? Yes that is how it was meant to be but no, what did the people of these countries do instead? turn on each other that's what and start murdering each other, they all start killing each other over what blend of Islam they follow.

Tell me this, instead of having a civil\sectarian war why not like good citizens would you not try to start living a better life, with better govt and elections that would bring govt services to everyone, isn't that what decent law abiding countries\people do?

So stop blaming the west for all this, same old story, you want to start slagging off the people of these countries, they had the opportunity to fix their countries after being run by a dictator but instead chose to start murdering each other over religious feuds once said dictator has been removed.

Go ahead, pick any of the **** holes in the ME we have meddled in, then show me where any of their citizens have joined together and built a better country and life, the answer is none.
Exactly!!
Why doesn't Saudi Arabia go in and sort things out, being a regional rich power?
Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in refugees \ do more to resettle them from these countries who are afflicted by war in the ME region?
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight, regarding the hand wringers in here like you blaming the west, didn't it go something like this, we remove dictators so that the people in these countries can form govt\elections that are fair and suit everyone? Isnt that how it was meant to be? Yes that is how it was meant to be but no, what did the people of these countries do instead? turn on each other that's what and start murdering each other, they all start killing each other over what blend of Islam they follow.

Tell me this, instead of having a civil\sectarian war why not like good citizens would you not try to start living a better life, with better govt and elections that would bring govt services to everyone, isn't that what decent law abiding countries\people do?

So stop blaming the west for all this, same old story, you want to start slagging off the people of these countries, they had the opportunity to fix their countries after being run by a dictator but instead chose to start murdering each other over religious feuds once said dictator has been removed.

Go ahead, pick any of the **** holes in the ME we have meddled in, then show me where any of their citizens have joined together and built a better country and life, the answer is none.
These countries are used to dictators. Remove a dictator and you create a massive power vacuum. You can't say "why don't the people band together and democratically choose a lovely leader" because every part of that is alien to the way they're used to living. It's totally unknown to them. It's why the whole regime change thing is such a dangerous game to play. You get rid of one nasty so and so and seven more appear vying to take his place.
 
Agreed, Islamic extremism has no place in the UK, nor pretty much any extremism.

The reality is the law is currently doing what you propose. People preaching extremism are either jailed or jailed and deported if they aren't British.

What I do question is your suggestion that the use of violence is going to help matters. These people are willing to die for their cause. What "toughness" do you anticipate (that will contravene the GC) we will need, and how will you ensure this "toughness" doesn't affect innocent people?

Arazi's idea, as an example, was roundly destroyed in the other thread because not only does it contravene 1000 years of British law and a large part of what makes us "british" in the first place, it will drag in a huge bunch of those that are innocent.



Oh, so now we're going back to it only affecting people on a specific part of the watch list, because remember guys if it's not Islamic terrorism it's not as important...

See post #343 where I answered your question. I agree with you, the type of people we are dealing with here makes it a difficult situation to control. I'd like to think that a life sentence on an island separate from the UK (this would have to be setup) where prisoners only get the bare essentials to survive would be enough. These people (animals) deserve nothing more than this. Whether that would be enough...who knows, unlikely but there isn't much more that we can do. This is the preventative punishment.

As for the reactive punishment. I am torn here a little. I'm not really a person for capital punishment but for any that that are caught after committing an act of terrorism where human life has been taken and there is 100% certainty that the person caught is the perpetrator it is a situation where I have no problem with this punishment being used. The people who commit acts like this set out with one intention, to take lives, they do not belong amongst us and as a tax payer I do not want to pay for their upkeep in a prison somewhere. I do not care for rehabilitation attempts etc. If someone makes the choice to follow the path of terrorism they do it full well knowing the consequences.

I shall probably be scorned for my last point of view but it's just my opinion. If I sit and put myself into the shoes of anyone that has lost a partner, child, family member to one of these attacks this is how I end up feeling. We have no issues euthanizing out pets when they reach a certain point of illness, and they're animals we love. We'd just be treating these 'animals' the same way, a permanent cure to their sick illness. Maybe I just let my emotions get the better of me when thinking about this but the thought or my partner having their head hacked off by some nut job tends to make me feel that way. Those thoughts are the reality some have to face.

Statistically sure this situation shall probably never effect me but that doesn't mean I do not think about those whose lives have been affected by any of these attacks.
 
Exactly!!
Why doesn't Saudi Arabia go in and sort things out, being a regional rich power?
Why doesn't Saudi Arabia take in refugees \ do more to resettle them from these countries who are afflicted by war in the ME region?
Simply because they only care about themselves and no one else.
 
Back
Top Bottom