Don't remember ever hearing about this. A planning officer shot dead while the BBC cameras were rolling.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4619434/al...n-brother/

Never heard that myself, just shows the difference as back then nobody would have thought they'd get shot, nowadays everybody would have bolted the moment he got the gun out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41538762



Religion of peace strikes again

(10-07-2017, 03:26 PM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41538762



Religion of peace strikes again

Currently not believed to be terrorist-related, so please pipe down and wait for actual information.

I've not got the best of memories (and I'm not going to google the shit out it) but I can barely (actually I can't) remember a single incident of this type of 'mental-illness' related behaviour, like ever.

(10-07-2017, 03:55 PM)pondlife Wrote: I've not got the best of memories (and I'm not going to google the shit out it) but I can barely (actually I can't) remember a single incident of this type of 'mental-illness' related behaviour, like ever.

There was one in Marseille a few weeks ago. Also the Finsbury Park attack as an example of one not carried out in the name of Islam. Have seen it suggested that non-religiously motivated copycat versions of this kind of attack could become fairly common given that the method is now 'out there' and accessible to any nutjob with a car. Time will tell if that's the case here, but either way it's pretty unpleasant when people like Dank seem delighted by the prospect that an attack like this might further their agenda.

(10-07-2017, 03:35 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: Currently not believed to be terrorist-related, so please pipe down and wait for actual information.

Not sure that's whats been said - they maybe aren't saying it's terrorism nor are they saying it isn't. Time will tell.

My agenda

As stupid as religion is, people are to blame for terrorist attacks. Not religions.

Yep. A few people salivating at the prospect of more deaths and casualties.

(10-07-2017, 04:00 PM)Nabolene Bona Parte Wrote: There was one in Marseille a few weeks ago. Also the Finsbury Park attack as an example of one not carried out in the name of Islam. Have seen it suggested that non-religiously motivated copycat versions of this kind of attack could become fairly common given that the method is now 'out there' and accessible to any nutjob with a car. Time will tell if that's the case here, but either way it's pretty unpleasant when people like Dank seem delighted by the prospect that an attack like this might further their agenda.

Fair enough. I missed a crucial caveat at the end, namely 'since it became a favourite amongst the ISIS fraternity'.I guess that was what I was getting at; that this seems only really to have been on the radar since 'ISIS affiliates' have taken it on as a tactic. I'll chuck in the generic exceptions to the rule statement but I don't think that jumping the gun in this instance really detracts from what we all know is Dank's view/agenda.

Unless we see a big swing the other way, committed by say insane X-Factor fanatics, that MO will always be associated with nutters who shout Long Live Allah, whether bevvied or high on speed, or both.

It's obviously shite no matter who the perpetrator, which of course there's no disagreement on.

What's different between what I said there and the widely acceptable response to the Vegas incident re gun control?

(10-07-2017, 04:19 PM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: What's different between what I said there and the widely acceptable response to the Vegas incident re gun control?

Guns are designed to be used to kill people. Religion is set of beliefs, often used for good.

(10-07-2017, 04:19 PM)pondlife Wrote: Fair enough.  I missed a crucial caveat at the end, namely 'since it became a favourite amongst the ISIS fraternity'.I guess that was what I was getting at; that this seems only really to have been on the radar since 'ISIS affiliates' have taken it on as a tactic. I'll chuck in the generic exceptions to the rule statement but I don't think that jumping the gun in this instance really detracts from what we all know is Dank's view/agenda.

Unless we see a big swing the other way, committed by say insane X-Factor fanatics, that MO will always be associated with nutters who shout Long Live Allah, whether bevvied or high on speed, or both.

It's obviously shite no matter who the perpetrator, which of course there's no disagreement on.

No disagreement at all that it was ISIS that got the method 'out there'. My point was more that now it is out there, it could be picked up by anyone.

(10-07-2017, 04:19 PM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: What's different between what I said there and the widely acceptable response to the Vegas incident re gun control?

One refers to an objective legal situation, the other to a religion and by extension its adherents. Unless your point was that Islam is present here and some people use it to justify violence, so we should legislate against Islam. If that's the case, no structural difference at all - people are disagreeing with the premise.

(10-07-2017, 04:29 PM)Bill Cosby Wrote: Guns are designed to be used to kill people. Religion is set of beliefs, often used for good.

That statement is so narrow it's completely useless.

Many religions, Islam in particular, catalogue the military conquests of particular groups of people that were essential in the spread of that faith. You cannot detach the death from the beliefs.

ISIS and their ideological equivalents are death cults built on a particular, but legitimate, interpretation of that religion. Not one of these ISIS inspired attacks was done without religious justification.

(10-07-2017, 04:32 PM)Nabolene Bona Parte Wrote: One refers to an objective legal situation, the other to a religion and by extension its adherents. Unless your point was that Islam is present here and some people use it to justify violence, so we should legislate against Islam. If that's the case, no structural difference at all - people are disagreeing with the premise.

I was referring to the points people made mocking/condemning the NRA/right for saying people were capitalising on a tragedy to further their agenda, do you not see a similarity between that and you suggesting I'm happy to see these injuries or deaths because of my agenda(whatever that is)?

(10-07-2017, 04:36 PM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: ISIS and their ideological equivalents are death cults built on a particular, but legitimate, interpretation of that religion. Not one of these ISIS inspired attacks was done without religious justification.

False. ISIS and their ideological equivalents take one sentence or paragraph from the Quran which is subsequently contradicted completely in many other sections of the Quran. They ignore the many other sections - which must be taken as a whole to understand what the Quran is actually saying - then pretend that they represent the message of Islam when they absolutely do not and never have.

The equivalent would involve Christians enslaving black people because of what the Old Testament says. The New Testament superseded the Old Testament, so nobody would consider such behaviour "a particular, but legitimate interpretation of Christianity". Nor is this.

In making that "religion of peace" comment above, and claiming this to be a "legitimate interpretation" when it isn't, you're doing the terrorists' job for them.

The latest info, by the way, is that the driver of the car blacked out at the wheel. This was not a terrorist incident.

(10-07-2017, 04:32 PM)Nabolene Bona Parte Wrote: No disagreement at all that it was ISIS that got the method 'out there'. My point was more that now it is out there, it could be picked up by anyone.


One refers to an objective legal situation, the other to a religion and by extension its adherents. Unless your point was that Islam is present here and some people use it to justify violence, so we should legislate against Islam. If that's the case, no structural difference at all - people are disagreeing with the premise.

Yes, I agree.

I've started and deleted a couple of follow-ups to my sentence above; simply can't be arsed.

I will say however, that I generally believe in self-policing but everybody needs to be on board; without that the majority will always be too scared to act, and the mentalists win.

(10-07-2017, 04:50 PM)shaun.lawson Wrote: False. ISIS and their ideological equivalents take one sentence or paragraph from the Quran which is subsequently contradicted completely in many other sections of the Quran. They ignore the many other sections - which must be taken as a whole to understand what the Quran is actually saying - then pretend that they represent the message of Islam when they absolutely do not and never have.

The equivalent would involve Christians enslaving black people because of what the Old Testament says. The New Testament superseded the Old Testament, so nobody would consider such behaviour "a particular, but legitimate interpretation of Christianity". Nor is this.

In making that "religion of peace" comment above, and claiming this to be a "legitimate interpretation" when it isn't, you're doing the terrorists' job for them.

Entirely made up, these groups draw from widely supported schools of islamic thought. Their interpretation of jihad really comes down to what individual mullahs consider an act of aggression or war is against muslims (see East Timor). Now clearly I don't think they have a case, and that their use of jihad and takfir is wrong and misguided but when there are hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, who agree to varying extents with that, then I can't simply dismiss them as having no case.

Last time I checked neither of us were experts on Islam, Islamic history or theological interpretations, so I'm wondering why when someone claims to do something in the name of allah and to further the cause of a muslim empire you're unwilling to take their word for it that it's what they actually believe?