Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    On probability I think we can be extremely confident that there are. Saying you don't know is quite disingenuous - that just means to say we can't be certain. We don't need 100% certainty to be extremely confident though and all the evidence points to a continue Muslims terrorist threat.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We don't need 100% certainty to be extremely confident though for say a non Muslim terrorist threat. WHat exactly are you getting at here?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    We don't need 100% certainty to be extremely confident though for say a non Muslim terrorist threat. WHat exactly are you getting at here?
    Of course all you have repeated is that we can be extremely confident and justified in believing in something without having 100% certainty.

    However, you actually have to posit reasons or evidence which still points to none Muslims terrorist threats. This is what we base our probability on. The possibility that there are non Muslim threats doesn't mean they are likely.

    For Muslim threats, it's not that they are likely because they are possible but likely because of much, cumulative evidence.

    And the most important point is, there could be real non Muslim terrorist threats but that does nothing to affect Muslim threats. Regardless, the threat is very high and you have not offered any reason to suggest otherwise. We are absolutely justified in believing that Muslim terrorist threats are likely.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Of course all you have repeated is that we can be extremely confident and justified in believing in something without having 100% certainty.

    However, you actually have to posit reasons or evidence which still points to none Muslims terrorist threats. This is what we base our probability on. The possibility that there are non Muslim threats doesn't mean they are likely.

    For Muslim threats, it's not that they are likely because they are possible but likely because of much, cumulative evidence.

    And the most important point is, there could be real non Muslim terrorist threats but that does nothing to affect Muslim threats. Regardless, the threat is very high and you have not offered any reason to suggest otherwise. We are absolutely justified in believing that Muslim terrorist threats are likely.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Let me rephrase this. What are you suggesting we do? And no those other threats do nothing to affect Muslim threats, but the thing is, you are singling out Muslim threats as if they are the only threat..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    What's your point?
    That there are currently muslims in the UK planing to slaughter as many innocent civilians as they can

    down play this all you like but doesn't change this fact.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    That there are currently muslims in the UK planing to slaughter as many innocent civilians as they can

    down play this all you like but doesn't change this fact.
    No it doesn't change that, but you are SINGLING out Muslims as if to say only Muslims do this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Let me rephrase this. What are you suggesting we do? And no those other threats do nothing to affect Muslim threats, but the thing is, you are singling out Muslim threats as if they are the only threat..
    I think the realisation of how bad the threat is, is paramount. Different types of threats will of course need different approaches.

    Well you are confusing focusing on a contemporary, dangerous threat that deserves attention and using the threat to downplay other threats. I would guess you are Middle Eastern? South East Asian? I only say this because that is where Islam has a significant chunk of its adherents there and (whether you are Muslim or not) you seem to be offended when the real and obvious threat of Islam is brought up - as though it is a personal attack on your identity and culture.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    That there are currently muslims in the UK planing to slaughter as many innocent civilians as they can

    down play this all you like but doesn't change this fact.
    I don't mind getting slaughtered. As long as it is in a Halal manner I'm perfectly ok with it.

    Or so the lefties tell me I should be anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    No it doesn't change that, but you are SINGLING out Muslims as if to say only Muslims do this.
    No I'm not

    You are trying to say this is the case but it really isn't

    what you are trying to do is muddy the waters of the thread for some reason (are you a Muslim by any chance?)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I think the realisation of how bad the threat is, is paramount. Different types of threats will of course need different approaches.

    Well you are confusing focusing on a contemporary, dangerous threat that deserves attention and using the threat to downplay other threats. I would guess you are Middle Eastern? South East Asian? I only say this because that is where Islam has a significant chunk of its adherents there and (whether you are Muslim or not) you seem to be offended when the real and obvious threat of Islam is brought up - as though it is a personal attack on your identity and culture.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am not "downplaying the threat" I was saying that Muslim terrorism isn't the ONLY terrorism to hurt the UK. It is you who singles out Muslim terrorism.

    I don't think my ethnicity is particularly relevant to you. Besides, you assume ethnicity = particular religion....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    I am not "downplaying the threat" I was saying that Muslim terrorism isn't the ONLY terrorism to hurt the UK. It is you who singles out Muslim terrorism.

    I don't think my ethnicity is particularly relevant to you. Besides, you assume ethnicity = particular religion....
    And now the circularity commences.

    You would need to a point out where I have said Muslim terrorism is the only type of terrorism that the UK should look out for. Please substantiate that claim.

    If the word is 'downplaying' the I would have to go with 'distracting the attention'. Islamic terrorism is one of, if not the, leading type of terrorism today and when talking about important aspects, causes and reactions, it should not have the conversation stopped because 'non Muslims cause terrorism too'.

    Sure, I won't press you if you don't want to reveal personal information, but it is demonstrable that where you are born correlates strongly with religion. Funnily enough, ethnicity correlate almost completely with where you are born. Because of the strong statistical base, the assumption is completely justified.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Sure, I won't press you if you don't want to reveal personal information, but it is demonstrable that where you are born correlates strongly with religion. Funnily enough, ethnicity correlate almost completely with where you are born. Because of the strong statistical base, the assumption is completely justified.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's the difference between say the law, the MI5 and the police. They don't assume things however "Justified" they want actual concrete evidence, therefore you can't really claim any thing regarding my ethnicity (I may be white English, I may be Pakistani, I may be Indian) I might be Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, ex Muslim, Hindu. What does it matter?)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    That's the difference between say the law, the MI5 and the police. They don't assume things however "Justified" they want actual concrete evidence, therefore you can't really claim any thing regarding my ethnicity (I may be white English, I may be Pakistani, I may be Indian) I might be Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, ex Muslim, Hindu. What does it matter?)
    Oh yeh but you've moved the goal posts. In order to undertake an actual prosecution of someone, more than justified assumption is needed. However, there is a difference between the standard of evidence we want before we can prosecute someone and the acceptable standards of evidence we use to make probabilistic choices every day.

    Or course the fact that being born in Iraq or Pakistan will probably determine your religion is not an assumption. I was just positing a possible reason for your refusal to have a conversation on Islamic terrorism without needed to defer to other types of terrorism - namely a Islamic background of some sort (either weakly or strongly) which could be religious or cultural in nature.

    But anyway, this is becoming a black whole sucking up time. Let's get back on track - namely, the current threat of Islamic terrorism and the implications of migration from Syria.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    I don't mind getting slaughtered. As long as it is in a Halal manner I'm perfectly ok with it.

    Or so the lefties tell me I should be anyway.
    That is hilarious! What has Halal got to do with socialism? Why don't you blame the moon landing hoaxes, JFK's death and ebola on lefties whilst you are at it?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    If the head of MI5 is saying that then that is obviously very worrying.
    They come out and say the same damn thing every few months or so, usually and by sheer coincidence right around a time they are trying to get some new surveillance powers granted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    They come out and say the same damn thing every few months or so, usually and by sheer coincidence right around a time they are trying to get some new surveillance powers granted.
    Or, conspiracy theories aside, the threats get worse and worse and as a result they need more and more powers to be able to stop the attacks. Without the powers to intercept emails, phone records, how else can they protect us from the arrivals? They can't.

    The threat increases, the powers needed to stop them must also increase. Want less security monitoring? Have less immigration of hostile cultures.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Want less security monitoring? Have less immigration of hostile cultures.
    That would be great, but it won't happen. So I guess we are just going to have to get used to living in a country with increasingly less freedoms and rights. That it seems is the price you pay for the multiculti dream.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Apart for the attack on Lee Rigby and the Glasgow airport attacks

    Some failed attempts and some of these got really close to being successful[*]2006 28 September: Talbot Street bomb-making haul[*]2007 1 February: The 2007 Plot to behead a British Muslim soldier[*]2007 29 June: 2007 London car bombs.[*]2008 27 February: British police thwarted a suspected plot to kill Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during a state visit to Britain in the year 2007 a senior officer said.[*]2012 June: Five Muslims plotted to bomb an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury but arrived late and were arrested when returning to Birmingham. A sixth was also convicted.[33][*]2013 April: As part of Operation Pitsford 11 Muslims are jailed for a plotting terror attack involving suicide Bombers.[34]
    Sorry you're right. I was thinking of attacks with multiple fatalities, though obviously a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, and those failed attempts are also quite alarming.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FallofMrFifths)
    This.

    A lot of scaremongering in the media. We haven't seen an attack on UK soil since 7/7. As terrible as that attack was, that was ten years ago. To deny migrants access on that premise seems like overkill.
    We have had another attack on UK soil; the murder of Lee Rigby. We also had an absolutely horrifying massacre of British citizens in Tunisia early this year. You've also had the slaughter of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris, multiple Islamofascist shooting attacks on Jewish schools (yes, schools) and institutions.

    No serious person is saying that we should shut out all immigration to fight terrorism. But of course we do need to know who these people are; where have they come from? Why are they here? Do they hold extreme views?

    These are sensible questions to ask and responsible checks to make on newly-arrived migrants, and where appropriate, we should deport those who hold extremist views or views fundamentally incompatible with the tolerant, democratic British way of life.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    IS Planning UK Mass Casualty Attacks

    In other news, bears **** in the woods.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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