Terrorist attacks around the world

[cyruslosco66]

UK has raised its terror threat to as high as it can get .

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status ... 10273?s=20

[foenix]

This is from the link , i think in the right thread ,

Dude, you guys claim that people dismiss Brevik, Roof, etc. as being "mentally ill" but offer not a single shred of evidence that anyone in this thread or on Castanet has ever said any such thing. It's totally dishonest. I read through Brevik's manifesto so I know exactly why he did it, and it wasn't mental illness; it was terrorism (politically motivated). The only people talking about him being mentally ill are those like foenix.

Except dude, whenever there is a terrorist act by a Muslim...the posts are up before the ink is dry from the newspapers but whenever it's a white guy doing the same.....not a peep from those same poster that's busting their chops to post the "Muslim Terrorists". That should be a clue, no?

[Glacier]

Except dude, whenever there is a terrorist act by a Muslim...the posts are up before the ink is dry from the newspapers but whenever it's a white guy doing the same.....not a peep from those same poster that's busting their chops to post the "Muslim Terrorists". That should be a clue, no?

When the guy tells you why he did it and ISIS claims responsibility before the ink dries, you know he motive, and it's terrorism. When someone kills and there's no hint of a motive for a few days you can't just claim "terrorism". I know many people love to make assumptions without evidence, but that's not how it should be done.

The keys are MOTIVE and EVIDENCE.

BTW, I'm personally not a fan of calling attacks "terrorism" because it's often just a politically correct euphemism for Islamic extremism. I prefer to just call the attack by the ideology. eg. Jihadism, white supremacist, eco-fascism, etc.

[fvkasm2x]

Except dude, whenever there is a terrorist act by a Muslim...the posts are up before the ink is dry from the newspapers but whenever it's a white guy doing the same.....not a peep from those same poster that's busting their chops to post the "Muslim Terrorists". That should be a clue, no?

Because most people accept the generalized explanation of terrorism.

"An act of violence in the name of religious or political motivation."

When it's a brown or black guy screaming ALLAH AKBAR or screaming about infidels while he cuts off a head, it's a pretty safe bet he is a religious terrorist.

When a white guy shoots up a place, we don't know if it's a marital issue, got fired from his job, mental health, etc.... There are literally dozens or reasons why a white guy might kill people.

While those reasons are ALSO true for Muslims, they kind of almost always only do it for 1 reason: religion.

White guy bombs an abortion clinic for Jesus = Terrorism
White guy shoots up a synagogue to get Jews = Terrorism
White guy runs down a BLM march while wearing a MAGA hat = Terrorism

We're pretty consistent in our views on what terrorism is. It's simply easier to identify when it's done by some people more than others because they're blatant in letting us know that Allah is good and the white devil is bad.

[foenix]

White guy bombs an abortion clinic for Jesus = Terrorism
White guy shoots up a synagogue to get Jews = Terrorism
White guy runs down a BLM march while wearing a MAGA hat = Terrorism

While in theory that might be the case but practically speaking in this day and age....... I'm sure those guys above are portrayed by a lot of peeps as mentally ill despite the denial here. That's just how the narrative works in the world and I agree, it's a false narrative, that all Muslims are terrorist and no whites are terrorists but here we are......

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person. In the United States, two common though false narratives about terrorists who attack America abound. We see them on television, in the movies, on the news, and, currently, in the Trump administration. The first is that “terrorists are always (brown) Muslims.” The second is that “white people are never terrorists.” Different strands of critical race theory can help us understand these two narratives. One strand examines the role of unconscious cognitive biases in the production of stereotypes, such as the stereotype of the “Muslim terrorist.” Another strand focuses on white privilege, such as the privilege of avoiding the terrorist label. These false narratives play a crucial role in Trump’s propaganda. As the critical race analysis uncovers, these two narratives dovetail with two constituent parts of propaganda: flawed ideologies and aspirational myths. Propaganda relies on preexisting false ideologies, which is another way to describe racist stereotyping. Propaganda also relies on certain ideals and myths, in this case, the myth of white innocence and white superiority. Thus, the Trump administration’s intentional invocation of both narratives amounts to propaganda in more than just the colloquial sense. Part I illustrates each of the two narratives. Part II then analyzes them through a critical race lens, showing how they map onto two strands of critical race theory. Next, Part III examines how these narratives simultaneously enable and constitute propaganda. Finally, Part IV argues that the propagation of these false narratives hurts the nation’s security.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=flr

[foenix]

Except dude, whenever there is a terrorist act by a Muslim...the posts are up before the ink is dry from the newspapers but whenever it's a white guy doing the same.....not a peep from those same poster that's busting their chops to post the "Muslim Terrorists". That should be a clue, no?

When the guy tells you why he did it and ISIS claims responsibility before the ink dries, you know he motive, and it's terrorism. When someone kills and there's no hint of a motive for a few days you can't just claim "terrorism". I know many people love to make assumptions without evidence, but that's not how it should be done.

The keys are MOTIVE and EVIDENCE.

BTW, I'm personally not a fan of calling attacks "terrorism" because it's often just a politically correct euphemism for Islamic extremism. I prefer to just call the attack by the ideology. eg. Jihadism, white supremacist, eco-fascism, etc.

I can appreciate that Glacier and in a perfect world that would be the case....but we aren't living in one those. The biases are there and especially in the various right and left wing media where it's spun round and round in each other's echo chambers each telling their own narrative that, Muslims are all terrorists and no whites are ever terrorists.....when the real truth is neither is true.

[fvkasm2x]

While in theory that might be the case but practically speaking in this day and age....... I'm sure those guys above are portrayed by a lot of peeps as mentally ill despite the denial here. That's just how the narrative works in the world and I agree, it's a false narrative, that all Muslims are terrorist and no whites are terrorists but here we are......


https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=flr

Well I'm not really sure how anyone is supposed to give a rebuttal to this.


I've never heard anyone in my life say white people can't be terrorists.

I also don't know what to make of your link to 1 study written by 1 law professor 2 years ago. That's one persons opinion, who has written a paper to show her views, which quite honestly, are idiotic.

She opens her entire paper/thesis with a logical fallacy.

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person.

Because the vast majority of people bombing embassies, beheading people in the name of religion, blowing up churches, etc... are NOT white. The vast majority of terrorism occurs in countries where the population is not white, perpetrated by non-whites against other non-whites for religious reasons.

While I don't necessarily consider Wikipedia a great research tool, it is a "coles notes" version that one can quickly use to highlight a point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ts_in_2020

[foenix]

I also don't know what to make of your link to 1 study written by 1 law professor 2 years ago. That's one persons opinion, who has written a paper to show her views, which quite honestly, are idiotic.

She opens her entire paper/thesis with a logical fallacy.

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person.

Because the vast majority of people bombing embassies, beheading people in the name of religion, blowing up churches, etc... are NOT white. The vast majority of terrorism occurs in countries where the population is not white, perpetrated by non-whites against other non-whites for religious reasons.

While I don't necessarily consider Wikipedia a great research tool, it is a "coles notes" version that one can quickly use to highlight a point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ts_in_2020

See you just proved her point.

[fvkasm2x]

See you just proved her point.

No, reality and data proved her views incorrect.

[foenix]

While in theory that might be the case but practically speaking in this day and age....... I'm sure those guys above are portrayed by a lot of peeps as mentally ill despite the denial here. That's just how the narrative works in the world and I agree, it's a false narrative, that all Muslims are terrorist and no whites are terrorists but here we are......


https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=flr

Well I'm not really sure how anyone is supposed to give a rebuttal to this.


I've never heard anyone in my life say white people can't be terrorists.

I also don't know what to make of your link to 1 study written by 1 law professor 2 years ago. That's one persons opinion, who has written a paper to show her views, which quite honestly, are idiotic.

She opens her entire paper/thesis with a logical fallacy.

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person.

Because the vast majority of people bombing embassies, beheading people in the name of religion, blowing up churches, etc... are NOT white. The vast majority of terrorism occurs in countries where the population is not white, perpetrated by non-whites against other non-whites for religious reasons.

While I don't necessarily consider Wikipedia a great research tool, it is a "coles notes" version that one can quickly use to highlight a point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ts_in_2020

We are comparing apples to oranges. If you go back to the start of the discussion, I was writing about racial profiling and stereotying of Muslims by whites. That's what the link was about too. It wasn't a general comment on terrorists or terrorism worldwide, rather it was how "brown" looking people get profiled more as a terrorist than white people that commit similar acts of terror....like Dylan Roof. Here's an example from that well researched paper by Ms. Corbin. This section talks about the mosque attack in Quebec and how the guy that called for help who happened to be a Moroccan automatically got classified as the terrorist by the various media when it was actually the white guy that was the "terrorist". I'm shocked he wasn't classified as mentally ill but he certainly wasn't charged as a terrorist either.......

but Bissonnette was not charged under the terrorism provision of the Criminal Code or described as such by terrorism experts.

See the disconnect? Here's the Moroccan's story

.......we regularly witness the tendency to leap to the conclusion that Muslims were responsible for terror attacks. Take the U.S. media’s coverage of the recent massacre at a mosque in Quebec City, where the shooter killed six people and injured another nineteen. Early reports suggested that police were holding two men. And indeed they were—one born in Canada and one born in Morocco, a majority-Muslim country. Fox News tweeted out that there was a single Moroccan suspect: “Suspect in Quebec mosque terrorist attack was of Moroccan origin.” In fact, the gunman was the white French Canadian; the Moroccan-born man, Mohamed Belkhadir, was the one who had called the police when he heard shots. Far from being guilty, Belkhadir had been trying to help people when the police detained him. Third, the news repeatedly links “Muslim” with “terrorism.” When terror attacks are perpetrated by Muslims, they receive significantly more media attention. One study, after controlling for variables like number of fatalities, found that Muslim attacks receive on average 449 percent more media coverage. Another study found that news about Muslims was generally news about terrorism: an analysis of news coverage by three major networks revealed that 75 percent of stories that focused on Muslims was about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, or “Daesh”) or other militant groups.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=flr

[Glacier]

We are comparing apples to oranges. If you go back to the start of the discussion, I was writing about racial profiling and stereotying of Muslims by whites.

You still do not get what terrorism is. If you look at the Canadian criminal code, start with section 83.18 (1), and you see that terrorism is associated with belonging to a group that commits terrorist acts. Have you ever heard of the IRA? WHITE PEOPLE who were terrorists. Closer to home, have you ever heard of the FLQ? WHITE PEOPLE who were terrorists!

The only person who see race in this is you. BTW, Islam is not a race, lots of white Muslim terrorists too.

Find me a group of white people who commit acts of terror, and you will not see a double standard. The only reason you think there's a double standard is that you refuse to admit the fact that most terrorists are Muslim. This doesn't mean that most Muslims are terrorists, which should go without being said, but I have to say it anyway so you don't go down some crazy rabbit trail about how I'm saying all Muslims are terrorists.

I know you have good intentions, and understand that the danger of point out this fact about most terrorists being Muslim could enable white supremacists to commit discriminatory or violent acts against Muslims. This is obviously something we have to keep a guard against, but lying about facts is WORSE, and causes far more death, and in the long run far more discrimination against Muslims.

The Vienna attack, two of the 2016 attacks in France, and the 2019 London bridge attack were all conducted by terrorists who were released early from prisons because they had promised they had left the jihadist ideology behind. When you are trying to be too politically correct by letting Muslim terrorists go, you create resentment against Muslims in general, and not just the Jihadists.

We are all adults here, so let's have adult conversations without pussyfooting around the facts. No tolerance for discrimination and no tolerance for hiding facts.

[foenix]

We are comparing apples to oranges. If you go back to the start of the discussion, I was writing about racial profiling and stereotying of Muslims by whites.

You still do not get what terrorism is. If you look at the Canadian criminal code, start with section 83.18 (1), and you see that terrorism is associated with belonging to a group that commits terrorist acts. Have you ever heard of the IRA? WHITE PEOPLE who were terrorists. Closer to home, have you ever heard of the FLQ? WHITE PEOPLE who were terrorists!

So why was it again the white Quebecor wasnt a terrorist when he murdered all those Muslims?...and why wasnt Dylan Roof not a terrorist either when he tried to start a race war?

Here's the code......

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "

[Glacier]

So why was it again the white Quebecor wasnt a terrorist when he murdered all those Muslims?...and why wasnt Dylan Roof not a terrorist either when he tried to start a race war?

Here's the code......

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "

Good question, but Google is your friend.

Bissonnette was charged with six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder on January 30.[32] Although the Canadian prime minister and Quebec premier both condemned Bissonnette's actions as a terrorist attack, charges of terrorism were not brought; according to Canadian legal experts, in the Canadian Criminal Code, the offence of terrorism requires not only acts of violence, but usually also collaboration with a terrorist group, which would be difficult to prove for a single gunman.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Ci ... e_shooting

You can pretend to know more about what constitutes terrorism than the legal experts, but I'm siding with them.

BTW, if a Muslim goes into a church and shoots up the place he is not charges with terrorism if he was not motivated by Jihadism. You need to be doing it for a terrorist group.

[foenix]

So why was it again the white Quebecor wasnt a terrorist when he murdered all those Muslims?...and why wasnt Dylan Roof not a terrorist either when he tried to start a race war?

Here's the code......

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "

Good question, but Google is your friend.

Bissonnette was charged with six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder on January 30.[32] Although the Canadian prime minister and Quebec premier both condemned Bissonnette's actions as a terrorist attack, charges of terrorism were not brought; according to Canadian legal experts, in the Canadian Criminal Code, the offence of terrorism requires not only acts of violence, but usually also collaboration with a terrorist group, which would be difficult to prove for a single gunman.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Ci ... e_shooting

You can pretend to know more about what constitutes terrorism than the legal experts, but I'm siding with them.

BTW, if a Muslim goes into a church and shoots up the place he is not charges with terrorism if he was not motivated by Jihadism. You need to be doing it for a terrorist group.

Sounds like an arbitrary decision especially if you apply the Criminal Code definition of terrorism.
......and arent white supremacist part of a terrorist group?

.....and as to your absurd supposition about a lone Muslim gunman shooting up bunch of peeps....that happens all the time that the lone Muslim gunman gets the "terrorist" label...and a white dude, it will be either hate crime or mentally I'll.

[cyruslosco66]

Trump admin removes terrorist group from terrorist list ..

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/stat ... 80320?s=20