Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    usual americans, RIP to the three that died, but they kill thousands each year in war and bomb attacks, Americans are the biggest terrorists in the world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    Can you provide an example of this "state sanctioned terrorism"? I fear you're getting the terms confused.

    He might have confused the United States of America with the Islamic Republic of Iran


    But wait a min. What about the drones?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know of the study I'm talking about?

    It's done by an American professor and it's all about terrorism.

    There's a video on youtube and he's being interviewed by some dude, and its around 45-60 minutes long
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chindits)
    The Guardian - a rush to exonerate Muslims.

    The Guardian - rushes to blame Israel for everything and anything.
    You sound like a zionist!

    P.S I am not Muslim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I did see that part but statistics means little at the moment. Also it rather depends on the source of the stats. You are at best using the stats to mask your beliefs and prejudices to blame one group before any proof or indication has revealed members of that group are to blame so what I said sticks. Tough titties if you don't like it.
    statistics mean little at the moment? ok, i'd like you to implement that theory for everything.

    if a guy at college was known to steal bags from the changing rooms, got caught several times, and then after a while bags went missing from the changing rooms, we would be right in saying it is likely to be him. This is not scaremongering or scapegoating. same applied to muslims, but they dont steal bags.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I did see that part but statistics means little at the moment. Also it rather depends on the source of the stats. You are at best using the stats to mask your beliefs and prejudices to blame one group before any proof or indication has revealed members of that group are to blame so what I said sticks. Tough titties if you don't like it.
    This the exact problem. Anybody who has a differing opinion to the left's is discreditted completely by the abuse of terminology like 'racism'. It still supirses me that people take that word seriously nowadays.

    In class today my friend spoke about how most serial killers were white, and he would expect the future serial killers to be white. Nobody batted an eyelid. When I began to speak about religious extremism and Islam. Everybody's tune turned and they began challenging my statements. :confused: discussing Islam/Muslims always draws the angriest reaction.

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/wel...says-bbc-boss/

    The BBC has even admitted that they'll offend Christians, but not Muslims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehforum)
    See point 2, paragraph 1 of the article for evidence. Everyone is speaking up when its possibly Muslims because the media is heavily focused on it. What comparative groups were you thinking of?


    Yes, I don't expect Americans and the media to acquiesce to these attacks. But as above, see point 2, para 1, their claims are disgusting and completely unprofessional. The media whatever their stance, should remain impartial until the facts are out, until then it's all speculation. Once the facts are out, and maybe the attackers turn out to be Muslim then propound your right wing views to the readership of their respective newspaper.
    How the hell is 'right-wing' to be angry at a group who committed an atrocity? Maybe you're hung up on some hippy-BS about how we should turn the other cheek and what not but if someone blew up your mother or father I'm sure you wouldn't be very quick to be forgiving. Until the time that we find out who or what committed the attacks people can only presume through intuition, and right now I'd put my money on a radical religious group. Does that mean I hate muslims? No. Does that mean I am rationally thinking from prior information from a history of attacks? Yes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamgreatness)
    statistics mean little at the moment? ok, i'd like you to implement that theory for everything.

    if a guy at college was known to steal bags from the changing rooms, got caught several times, and then after a while bags went missing from the changing rooms, we would be right in saying it is likely to be him. This is not scaremongering or scapegoating. same applied to muslims, but they dont steal bags.
    Uhhum...

    Can you give statistics of "attacks" in US soil and who did it?
    One or two Muslim attacks are not enough to justify ....or you might know more of stats. Its not the magnitude but the frequency.

    If it was the magnitude then you should consider USA as the biggest threat (they called it Satan in Iran) in the world. They killed almost thousand times more civilians than 9/11 in a decade (yes 3 million).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StUdEnTIGCSE)
    Uhhum...

    Can you give statistics of "attacks" in US soil and who did it?
    One or two Muslim attacks are not enough to justify ....or you might know more of stats. Its not the magnitude but the frequency.

    If it was the magnitude then you should consider USA as the biggest threat (they called it Satan in Iran) in the world. They killed almost thousand times more civilians than 9/11 in a decade (yes 3 million).
    Not the world's best resource but all the information you need to find is right there:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StUdEnTIGCSE)
    But wait a min. What about the drones?
    Unmanned air-to-surface Hellfire missiles surgically striking terrorist training camps and centres of operational significance to further de-stabilize and eradicate any prospect of an organized terrorist network? Seems fair game in my view. Terrorism is an operational level of choice to accomplish a strategic goal and I emphasize, using unsanctioned violence (that is, an entity that does not possess the legitimacy of force i.e. a non-state actor). It is generally to create a state of fear within the citizenry by indiscriminate, tactical attacks. The case of UAV attacks does not fit the parameters within the confides of terrorism. UAV attacks are surgical attacks with the purpose of destroying non-uniformed combatants, not civilians, which terrorism asserts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    How the hell is 'right-wing' to be angry at a group who committed an atrocity? Maybe you're hung up on some hippy-BS about how we should turn the other cheek and what not but if someone blew up your mother or father I'm sure you wouldn't be very quick to be forgiving. Until the time that we find out who or what committed the attacks people can only presume through intuition, and right now I'd put my money on a radical religious group. Does that mean I hate muslims? No. Does that mean I am rationally thinking from prior information from a history of attacks? Yes.
    I didn't say it was right wing to be angry at a group. I said its wrong for mainly right wing newspapers to assume or to imply that the attacks were carried out by Muslims. There is no basis on fact. Newspapers and their editors should not rely on "rational thinking" - correlation does not equal causation. Once the facts are out, and if it did turn out to be Muslim attackers, then by all mean, spout your respective views on how Muslims are to blame.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    How the hell is 'right-wing' to be angry at a group who committed an atrocity? Maybe you're hung up on some hippy-BS about how we should turn the other cheek and what not but if someone blew up your mother or father I'm sure you wouldn't be very quick to be forgiving. Until the time that we find out who or what committed the attacks people can only presume through intuition, and right now I'd put my money on a radical religious group. Does that mean I hate muslims? No. Does that mean I am rationally thinking from prior information from a history of attacks? Yes.
    Statistically speaking, it would be far more rational to wager on the side of a far-right/militia-sympathizer entity rather than a religious one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    Unmanned air-to-surface Hellfire missiles surgically striking terrorist training camps and centres of operational significance to further de-stabilize and eradicate any prospect of an organized terrorist network? Seems fair game in my view. Terrorism is an operational level of choice to accomplish a strategic goal and I emphasize, using unsanctioned violence (that is, an entity that does not possess the legitimacy of force i.e. a non-state actor). It is generally to create a state of fear within the citizenry by indiscriminate, tactical attacks. The case of UAV attacks does not fit the parameters within the confides of terrorism. UAV attacks are surgical attacks with the purpose of destroying non-uniformed combatants, not civilians, which terrorism asserts.

    Terrorists in the conventional sense (extremist Islamists) and states have something in common. They want to further a political goal, and I feel this is what underlies terrorism. The implication of this is that states can commit terrorism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamgreatness)
    whats wrong with thinking it was muslims? statistically they are the most likely to do this
    And what "statistics" are you basing this brilliant statement on?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehforum)
    Terrorists in the conventional sense (extremist Islamists) and states have something in common. They want to further a political goal, and I feel this is what underlies terrorism. The implication of this is that states can commit terrorism.
    From my perspective, I don't believe the furthering of a political goal to be the sole parameter to define terrorism. A furthering of a political strategic objective through means of violence and conflict, exercising without diplomatic discourse constitutes "war", not terrorism. Whilst terrorism maybe the methodology in which one conducts a war, terrorism precludes having the right to exercise force in contrast to a state which does have the right to use of force.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Not the world's best resource but all the information you need to find is right there:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks
    Is the link about attacks only in US soil?
    Or do the US think they own the world?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    I have increasingly noticed this PC hysteria around the bombings. They're hijacking this story to try and prove racism against Muslims, or that everybody is blaming Muslims.

    Just because somebody may also believe they were Muslims or A Muslim, doesn't mean they're hating on muslims. Some people susepct North Korea & Far-right groups as well. It's not the first time we've seen fabrications such as this before though. The Western world seems to take every opportunity it can to create this racism narrative. I am sure that if a veiled, Muslim woman was randomly assaulted in an unprovoked attack, People would jump to 'Racism' or 'Islamophobia'... Which has been much more common in our society.
    Would you like to be unfairly blamed for a crime against which there is no evidence for?

    Would it be "PC hysteria" to be upset to be blamed for something that you didn't do?

    Rushing to blame someone without knowing the facts, and without having ANY evidence for such blame is not even just wrong, but fear mongering.

    All I'm saying is, until SOLID information is gathered as to the culprit, there shouldn't be a rush to place blame on ANYONE.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    46 people die in a bombing in Afghanistan and the news has a tiny coverage on it, 3 people die in a bombing in America and the world stops.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    Would you like to be unfairly blamed for a crime against which there is no evidence for?

    Would it be "PC hysteria" to be upset to be blamed for something that you didn't do?

    Rushing to blame someone without knowing the facts, and without having ANY evidence for such blame is not even just wrong, but fear mongering.

    All I'm saying is, until SOLID information is gathered as to the culprit, there shouldn't be a rush to place blame on ANYONE.
    It's not being blamed on anybody. If so, who is blaming? are you judging this off internet comments? So what are you speaking of? everybody stereotypes anyway. It's just that when it involves Muslims, people begin voicing their concern at stereotypes. If it's another group, it seems to be fine....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by As_Dust_Dances_)
    46 people die in a bombing in Afghanistan and the news has a tiny coverage on it, 3 people die in a bombing in America and the world stops.
    Women are raped and killed everyday, yet when it happens to a woman in India, it makes world news.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.