ISIS claims responsibility for London attack Watch

QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Palmyra)
My contention was not that X's claim can "be dismissed".

Instead, I argued that we don't have sufficient information to make the factual findings necessary to allocate responsibility. Further, in lieu of such information, we should be reluctant to attribute responsibility to such cases in general. Thus, contrary to your initial assertion, it is not "reasonable to assume" responsibility (of X) in this case.
Of course it is reasonable to assume that they may be responsible. The "responsibility" doesn't have to involve actual planning or contact with the attacker. All it requires is that he has been exposed to their message - which he obviously has. Given that, it seems somewhat odd to insist that their message could not have had any impact or influence on him. It is far less reasonable to claim that a known Islamist extremist who has been convicted of terrorism offences either was not aware of ISIS's calls for action, or that he heard them and dismissed them, but then went on to carry out an extraordinary act that was specifically called for by ISIS.
Come on.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
isis claim that they sacked Watford's boss... their press release says "we cannot tolerate the poor performance of the infidels under the regime of Sanchez Flores."
1
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by QE2)
I didn't say you did, did I?
Then what was the purpose of the monologue?
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
(Original post by QE2)
Of course it is reasonable to assume that they may be responsible. The "responsibility" doesn't have to involve actual planning or contact with the attacker. All it requires is that he has been exposed to their message - which he obviously has. Given that, it seems somewhat odd to insist that their message could not have had any impact or influence on him. It is far less reasonable to claim that a known Islamist extremist who has been convicted of terrorism offences either was not aware of ISIS's calls for action, or that he heard them and dismissed them, but then went on to carry out an extraordinary act that was specifically called for by ISIS.
Come on.
His prior conviction had nothing to do with ISIS - the group didn't even exist at the time!

Your threshold for attributing responsibility to ISIS is ridiculously low and plays straight into their hands by placing too much weight on their self-professed responsibility, despite their clearly self-interested motivations for doing so.

Hence, in lieu of clear evidence that Mr Khan's actions were in fact inspired by ISIS, I maintain that it is not "reasonable to assume" a causal link between the acts of ISIS and the acts of Mr Khan.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(Original post by gjd800)
Then what was the purpose of the monologue?
To cause online drama
1
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by Palmyra)
Except that (1) Y have been doing Z for long before X have been calling for it to happen and (2) in this case, Y possibly would have done Z even without X calling for it, i.e. X's statements did not constitute a causal influence for Y to do Z and was merely coincidental to it.
(Original post by Palmyra)
Instead, I argued that we don't have sufficient information to make the factual findings necessary to allocate responsibility.
Surely X (ISIS) is a direct descendant of people Y who have long been calling for terror attacks against civilians using the same ideology? The two are intertwined.

I see an automatic share of responsibility on the part of ISIS/AQ and their clear brand of Islamist radicals, here. In much the same way I would hold Trump and his white nationalist brand responsible for the rise in white nationalist radicalism.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
The English prison system and the fact that it is to all intents an purposes a Jihadi factory where many ordinary Muslims go in and radicalised Muslims come out is more responsible for this than Isis.
Successive governments inability to deal with this problem is more responsible than isis.
The Jihadi cancer that infects the system is more responsible than Isis.

It's time to have a terror super prison where anybody convicted of terrorism goes and ordinary Muslims convicted of none terror crimes don't.
Last edited by Just my opinion; 1 week ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by the bear)
isis claim that they sacked Watford's boss... their press release says "we cannot tolerate the poor performance of the infidels under the regime of Sanchez Flores."
If ISIS had been calling for Flores' sacking for some years, and they are known to have been responsible for the sacking of other managers, then claiming responsibility for Flores' sacking would be a reasonable claim.
Really don't see why people are struggling to grasp the concept.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by gjd800)
Then what was the purpose of the monologue?
To show that ISIS's claim is not unreasonable.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by Palmyra)
His prior conviction had nothing to do with ISIS - the group didn't even exist at the time!
It shows a propensity for Islamist extremism, which is ISIS's USP.
Notice that his latest offence was different to his earlier one and bore the hallmarks of a particular action that ISIS have been calling on radicalised Muslims to commit, ie. using knives where more effective weaponry is unavailable.

Your threshold for attributing responsibility to ISIS is ridiculously low and plays straight into their hands by placing too much weight on their self-professed responsibility, despite their clearly self-interested motivations for doing so.
*sigh*
I have not said that they are responsible, only that their claim is not unreasonable.

Hence, in lieu of clear evidence that Mr Khan's actions were in fact inspired by ISIS, I maintain that it is not "reasonable to assume" a causal link between the acts of ISIS and the acts of Mr Khan.
Wrong. In the absence of any hard evidence either way, the only reasonable position is that he may have been inspired by ISIS. To claim that such absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a demonstrable logical error.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
To cause online drama
No. To correct flawed arguments.
Go on. Explain where my argument is wrong.

And stop stalking me, weirdo.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by QE2)
No. To correct flawed arguments.
Go on. Explain where my argument is wrong.

And stop stalking me, weirdo.
You could start a fight in an empty room.

You obviously dont know the meaning of the word follow either
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You could start a fight in an empty room.

You obviously dont know the meaning of the word follow either
1. The room was not empty. There were already people in there asking for "a fight" (This is a public debate forum. The whole point of it is for people to present arguments and to have them challenged. *smh*)
2. You were in the room before me.
3. So you accept the validity of my argument.
4. "I was not stalking her, your honour, merely following. I "followed" her to her work and on dates and on holiday."
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by QE2)
2. You were in the room before me.
:facepalm:So how can I follow you? Assuming you know what follow means!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
:facepalm:So how can I follow you? Assuming you know what follow means!
Let me explain is simple terms.
You constantly moan about me "following" you and commenting on your posts. And yet you complain when I point out that you are doing it to me.
The reality is that I don't care if you follow me. I welcome it, as you would already know if you were able to understand simple concepts. My post was ironic - assuming you know what that means (and yes, that bit was also ironic because I know that you don't understand irony).
0
reply
ededdeddie
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
Right before an election???
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 week ago
#37
(Original post by QE2)
Let me explain is simple terms.
You constantly moan about me "following" you and commenting on your posts. And yet you complain when I point out that you are doing it to me.
The reality is that I don't care if you follow me. I welcome it, as you would already know if you were able to understand simple concepts. My post was ironic - assuming you know what that means (and yes, that bit was also ironic because I know that you don't understand irony).
:lolz::lies:
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
:lolz::lies:
Are you saying you haven't commented to other members about me popping up on various threads to reply to your posts?
Come on - be honest. It's all there for scrutiny.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by QE2)
Are you saying you haven't commented to other members about me popping up on various threads to reply to your posts?
Come on - be honest. It's all there for scrutiny.
You just don't understand anything do you?

A) I have not followed you!

B) I have not spoken to you!

C) You have not proved any irony

D) You're accusations are false as usual

I've pointed out the fact you post to create online drama and you have hardly proved me wrong, have you? I wont reply again good bye, as I said you could create an argument in a empty room.:troll:
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 1 week ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You just don't understand anything do you?
Wrong. I understand a great many things.
(TBH, that's quite a feeble attempt at a riposte to my long-running "list of thing that Burton Bridge doesn't understand" theme, even for you)

A) I have not followed you!
Well, you keep popping up with your little comments whenever I post on here. Coincidence?

B) I have not spoken to you!
You do realise that you just addressed a series of sentences at me? Kinda the definition of "talking to".

C) You have not proved any irony
Look, we know you don't understand irony, so how would you be able to recognise it? Even if you did, you would deny it in order to save face.

D) You're accusations are false as usual
Which ones? Be specific. (It's "your" BTW)

I've pointed out the fact you post to create online drama and you have hardly proved me wrong, have you?
I post to educate, entertain and inform. Any "drama" is merely a side-effect of other people's inability to cope with being corrected.


I wont reply again good bye, as I said you could create an argument in a empty room.
Obviously not possible.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (354)
46.09%
No (82)
10.68%
I'm not old enough (332)
43.23%

Watched Threads

View All