Turn on thread page Beta

Terror attack in New York City: 8 people dead watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Proportionally, murderers in the US are far more likely to be black than white. In fact, they are about as likely to be black in real terms.

    Be careful how you use that race card!
    inb4 someone screams racism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FriendlyPenguin)
    I think they were unhappy with the poster in question seemingly making up the guy saying Allahu Akbar, the same way TSR posters usually go "bet it was the #religionOfPeace" after every terror attack.
    Just because people jump to conclusions doesn't mean that they can't be correct. In this context, seems like they usually are.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by QE2)
    Jeez, another one!

    Look up, or Google, "condemn" and "apologise".
    You will find that they are completely different concepts.

    The only people who need to apologise for such attacks are people involved in carrying them out, who now regret their involvement.

    Everyone who does not support the attacks should condemn them. Refusal to condemn them is tacit support. No other way of looking at it.
    Do you condemn Islamist terror attacks?
    Do you condemn Far Right terror attacks?
    I have to ask, who exactly on this forum is condoning these terrorist attacks?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by APPLICANT2016)
    it is 100% true that NO muslim condones these acts.
    Wrong. There are at least the several thousand ISIS members who condone it. In fact, studies have shown that although the percentage of Muslims who do condone these attacks is very small, they equate to tens of millions of Muslims worldwide.

    The Koran absolutely and totally forbids harming anyone.
    Utter nonsense! The Quran contains many passages that specify who may be killed and tortured, and why.

    The Koran forbids suicide of any kind - so suicide bombers are actually acting totally against Islam.
    The Quran does not forbid sacrificing your life "fighting in the way of Allah".

    The IRA bombed the hell out of this country for 20 years - they weren't muslims.
    No, they were Catholics. However, they were not attempting to establish a worldwide Catholic theocracy. They were attempting to gain independence from the UK and a united Ireland.
    Did you have a point here?

    There were 2 world wars. They weren't caused my muslims. The people who threw atom bombs on Japan and killed millions - I don't think they were muslims.
    Ah, you didn't have a point.

    The people who enslaved millions of blacks, wiped out the Indians and aborigines from their home lands were not muslims.
    With all due respect, perhaps you should study the history of Islam before you make such statements. It is estimated that Muslim slave traders enslaved and traded more Africans than the Europeans did in the Atlantic slave trade. Did you know that slavery was still legal in some Muslim countries until the 1960s? No? Thought not!

    And the Muslim conquest of India in the middle ages is regarded as one of the biggest genocides in world history and certainly in ancient history. It is estimated that as many as 100 million Hindus were murdered over the course of the Muslim occupation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Learn the difference between "condemn" and "apologise". Google will help you. Or a dictionary if you have one.

    JMR said he "condemned" the attack. He didn't say he apologised for it.

    I condemn all attacks on non-combatants. I don't apologise for any of them.

    *smh*
    "not in my name"

    *smh*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    I have to ask, who exactly on this forum is condoning these terrorist attacks?
    Anyone who refuses to condemn the attacks when asked, is tacitly condoning them. I can't say "exactly" because it is forbidden, but one of them is now permabanned.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
    "not in my name"

    *smh*
    That's not "apologising", that's "distancing".

    Again, two different concepts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    just revolting. why would someone want to do that ?

    :emo:
    fighting fire with fire mate
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyreese)
    fighting fire with fire mate
    i am not your mate.

    Daesh are murdering scum.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    That's not "apologising", that's "distancing".

    Again, two different concepts.
    He doesn't need to distance himself from Saipov because he doesn't have anything to do with him.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by QE2)
    Anyone who refuses to condemn the attacks when asked, is tacitly condoning them. I can't say "exactly" because it is forbidden, but one of them is now permabanned.
    They're probably just ignoring you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
    He doesn't need to distance himself from Saipov because he doesn't have anything to do with him.
    If you claim a shared ideology and someone does something unacceptable in the name of that shared ideology, you either condemn/distance yourself or risk accusations of tacit support.

    I have never really seen the problem with condemning acts of violence against non-combatants, and I wonder about the motives of those who refuse to condemn such acts - especially when they are happy to condemn some other, less serious attacks by/on a different group.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ninja Squirrel)
    They're probably just ignoring you.
    No. They refuse to condemn attacks by Sunni Muslims, although there is regular condemnation of attacks on Sunni Muslims. It is a long-running issue that doesn't just relate to terrorist attacks in the west.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Jeez, another one!

    Look up, or Google, "condemn" and "apologise".
    You will find that they are completely different concepts.

    The only people who need to apologise for such attacks are people involved in carrying them out, who now regret their involvement.

    Everyone who does not support the attacks should condemn them. Refusal to condemn them is tacit support. No other way of looking at it.
    Do you condemn Islamist terror attacks?
    Do you condemn Far Right terror attacks?
    I don't see why anyone needs to condemn them though. Maybe if someone asks then yeah, but otherwise there is no point in condemning an attack. I don't see why people are being pressured to condemn attacks these days. It means nothing and it just shows how especially Muslims and people on the right are being forced to prove that they're peaceful.

    I don't think Muslims should be seen as supporting terrorism just because they aren't condemning every muslim terror attack. Just leave them alone.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    If you claim a shared ideology and someone does something unacceptable in the name of that shared ideology, you either condemn/distance yourself or risk accusations of tacit support.

    I have never really seen the problem with condemning acts of violence against non-combatants, and I wonder about the motives of those who refuse to condemn such acts - especially when they are happy to condemn some other, less serious attacks by/on a different group.
    There's an Islamic terror attack somewhere in the world probably every day. Muslims have lives to live and condemning doesn't do anything anyway so I don't see why Muslims should have to condemn attacks when, like most of us, they just want to go on with their day to day lives. This "if you don't condemn it you support it" narrative is poisonous and stems from an Islamophobic attitude where Muslims are expected to prove their 'peacefulness' and loyalty and are seen as secretly being the enemy instead of being accepted as a normal British person unless proven otherwise.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by QE2)
    Anyone who refuses to condemn the attacks when asked, is tacitly condoning them. I can't say "exactly" because it is forbidden, but one of them is now permabanned.
    Does that mean that anyone who refuses to condone drone strikes on civilians is in fact supporting blatant murder and terrorism?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I quit following my local news, it was just too much. I'm an American btw.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Does that mean that anyone who refuses to condone drone strikes on civilians is in fact supporting blatant murder and terrorism?
    No. Someone who refuses to condone an attack on civilians obviously doesn't support it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MartinF98)
    I don't see why anyone needs to condemn them though. Maybe if someone asks then yeah, but otherwise there is no point in condemning an attack. I don't see why people are being pressured to condemn attacks these days. It means nothing and it just shows how especially Muslims and people on the right are being forced to prove that they're peaceful.

    I don't think Muslims should be seen as supporting terrorism just because they aren't condemning every muslim terror attack. Just leave them alone.
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    There's an Islamic terror attack somewhere in the world probably every day. Muslims have lives to live and condemning doesn't do anything anyway so I don't see why Muslims should have to condemn attacks when, like most of us, they just want to go on with their day to day lives. This "if you don't condemn it you support it" narrative is poisonous and stems from an Islamophobic attitude where Muslims are expected to prove their 'peacefulness' and loyalty and are seen as secretly being the enemy instead of being accepted as a normal British person unless proven otherwise.
    I agree that no one is obliged to unilaterally condemn anything.

    However, if that thing is a brutal and deliberate mass murder of civilians, carried out in the name of an ideology that you not only follow but claim is perfect, and they use specific elements of your ideology to justify that act, it seems odd that you wouldn't want to unilaterally condemn it. I would, and do - and I have nothing invested in that ideology.

    Moreover, when questioned about it (possibly because you make a point of publicly condemning other similar acts by the followers of different ideologies), if you then refuse to condemn it, that refusal will certainly raise a few eyebrows.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Proportionally, murderers in the US are far more likely to be black than white. In fact, they are about as likely to be black in real terms.

    Be careful how you use that race card!
    I’m talking about mass shootings in real terms. They are mostly white men or non-Muslim black men. Muslims rarely cause any significant trouble in the us
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.