MI5 foils Islamist terror plot to kill the Prime Minister

[Kalis]

“Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"...24% disagreed with the statement...” - BBC poll

I may be guilty of downplaying the proportion of Islamic extremists within Britain.

That figure is awful.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please, spare us the Daily Mail nonsense.

Support for Sharia law does not equate to terrorism. Support for sharia law does not even necessarily imply extreme or medieval beliefs-supporters include a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Most of it is common sense rules for sorting out affairs within a community.

Support for religous violence does not equate to support for ISIS: among those who went to fight Jihad most went to fight for US-backed "moderate" groupings who opposed both Assad and ISIS.

And you’re downplaying extremism within Islam, whilst also talking about the Daily Mail for some unknown reason. I don’t read the Mail, it is full of celebrity nonsense that I have no interest in.

They weren’t actually moderate, just moderate in comparison to ISIS.

[Kalis]

bla bla bla

Are you going to refute my point or just chat shit?

[Super Kami Dende]

The funniest thing about this is she was only just defending these people like less than a week ago.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/30/16554544/myanmar-rohingya-ethnic-cleansing-suu-kyi

Buddist I meant.

Seems to me if you're so toxic to a country that even the Buddhists turn on you, maybe it isn't a problem with everyone else.

[Kalis]

it's impossible to argue with someone who already made up his mind and throw facts out of his ass.

Yeah, those pesky facts are quite annoying.

[Deleted]

Its good that Kalis told us about his interests in early 20s. Its an amazing point. Free young minds seeks fun and productive things to do. Me and my friends wanted to do so many fun things but there was never enough time. It was always one adventure to the next.
In Sweden and other countries with alot of new immigrants there are problems with roaming youth groups. Roaming around and causing problem. Our politicians says this happens because they're apparently bored and there's not enough things to do. That interesting point, considering its even easier to find fun things to do nowadays compared to when i was growing up. They get soccer fields, indoor sportshalls, and my favorite that our socialistic party always uses as excuse, "there's not enough fritidsgårdar". Yet the problem continues.
It has never crossed anyone minds apparently that it may be another problem causing this. These cultural groups have much harder time to engage in fun and creative tasks. I consider it a fact. I can just look at the creative, sport and scientific output from arabic countries, its basically zero. They completely enslave their minds for a fascist religious interpretation. Just look at some of their rules: not allow to gamble, not allow to drink alcohol, women are slaves to their husbands, not allowed to have sex before marriage. They live their lifes after someone else's hardcore interpretation, they dont think, someone else thinks for them. Hence why they having such a hard time engage in fun things. Its like their right hemisphere completely stalled.
So when someone tries to make an islamic terror suspect to a crazy individual problem they missed the mark i believe. Its not an individual problem, its a cultural problem. A cultural that has a lot easier to create a bored person that have it easier to join extreme groups. This culture needs to be free, where everyone are allowed to interpret their religion on a free individual basis, or not to choose be religious at all. Whats going on right now is complete opposite. Todays muslims are slaves for someone else interpretation. This region wont be harmonic until its people are free.

[Kalis]

Some more annoying facts, this time from those notorious Islamophobes at Channel 4 via the Guardian...

”In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.”

”Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain...”

[Deleted]

“Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"...24% disagreed with the statement...” - BBC poll

This is just far right shitposting.

What the question actually said was "I have some sympathies for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris". That's the exact formation of words on the survey.
Most people, Muslim or otherwise, would have sympathies with the motivations of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. That's a completely different thing from agreeing with an act of mass murder. I do not and most people would not agree that publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed with a Star Of David on his naked arse was a good idea, it has no satirical and no informational value. This does not mean I endorse the attacks: I don't.

Other results in the survey bear this interpretation out: 95 percent of Muslim respondents said they felt loyal to Britain and 93 percent said Muslims should obey British law. Asked if they would call police on someone who they knew to be planning violence, 94 percent said yes.

[Kalis]

This is just far right shitposting.

The BBC is far right? I copied that from their website.

[Deleted]

The BBC is far right? I copied that from their website.

You used a secondary source which flattered your argument and ignored the primary source material, either through laziness or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Given your other comments I suspect the latter.

[Kalis]

You used a secondary source which flattered your argument and ignored the primary source material, either through laziness or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Given your other comments I suspect the latter.

I copy pasted from the BBC website, fifth and sixth paragraphs here.

I put it in quotation marks because it was a quote and cited my source, now you have the link.

You’ve called the BBC far right shit posters.

[Super Kami Dende]

Seems to me you're so toxic to this forum.

Duly noted. Doesn't change my point.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just far right shitposting.

What the question actually said was "I have some sympathies for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris". That's the exact formation of words on the survey.

Wait, so you have no problem with people having ANY sympathy for Terrorists.

Jesus Christ.

[DSRilk]

This is why posturing and putting policemen everywhere in the street to calm morons is stupid.

The only thing that works against terrorism is a good foreign policy and intelligence.

I haven't seen any foreign policy choices really make a difference. However, I totally agree with your intelligence statement. I'd add in solid police work and an attentive citizenry as well.

[Deleted]

I copy pasted from the BBC website, fifth and sixth paragraphs here.

I put it in quotation marks because it was a quote and cited my source, now you have the link.

You’ve called the BBC far right shit posters.

The actual question was immediately below the paragraphs you quoted.

It doesn't matter what secondary analysis or comment may say about something: the primary source is all that matters.
That is why a secondary source is secondary.

I don't believe you don't understand that point, which means you were either too lazy to check or are deliberately trying to deceive.

[The One Percent]

Some more annoying facts, this time from those notorious Islamophobes at Channel 4 via the Guardian...

”In a series of questions on the terror threat in Britain, 4% said they sympathised with people who took part in suicide bombings (1% said they completely sympathised and 3% said they sympathised to some extent), and 4% said they sympathised with people who committed terrorist actions as a form of political protest generally.”

”Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain...”

And that's just those that answered truthfully. Most Muslims understand that they can't openly express their extreme religious political views until they are a majority.

[Deleted]

Wait, so you have no problem with people having ANY sympathy for Terrorists.

Having sympathies for their motives does not equate to sympathies for their actions.

I just explained that.

[Kalis]

The actual question was immediately below the paragraphs you quoted.

It doesn't matter what secondary analysis or comment may say about something: the primary source is all that matters.
That is why a secondary source is secondary.

I don't believe you are actually so stupid you don't understand that point, which means you were either too lazy to check
or are deliberately trying to deceive.

They were different questions.

There were six questions on the Charlie Hebdo attacks, one asked if organisations that publish pictures of Mohammed deserve to be attacked, 11% agreed, another asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of Mohammed can never be justified, 24% disagreed.

You are talking about one of the other questions.

See table 14 in this survey.


For reference:

Q2. Organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammad deserve to be attacked - 11% agreed

Q3. Acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified - 24% disagreed

Q4. I have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris - 27% agreed

I was talking about Q3, you were talking about Q4. 11% agreeing with Q2 is even scarier.

I don’t care if they were offended or had sympathy, I care if they think violence is justified or if they deserve to be attacked.

[DSRilk]

You said that political violence was acceptable, that is an extremist viewpoint.

Do you actually think that advocating political violence is a moderate position?

I think it depends on the circumstance. An attempted overthrow of a dictator is less likely to be thought of as extremism, for example. On a side note, this thread is rife with examples of why you are one of my favorite posters on this forum. Mature yet amusing. Thank you.

[Kalis]

I think it depends on the circumstance. An attempted overthrow of a dictator is less likely to be thought of as extremism, for example. On a side note, this thread is rife with examples of why you are one of my favorite posters on this forum. Mature yet amusing. Thank you.

It was about bashing fascists. My view is that they are free to hold their shitty views and if they break the law then that is for the authorities to deal with, advanta wants to bash them for having shitty views, even if they don’t break the law.

Lynch mobs bashing alleged fascists is not my idea of a civilised society.

[Deleted]

They were different questions.

There were six questions on the Charlie Hebdo attacks, one asked if organisations that publish pictures of Mohammed deserve to be attacked, 11% agreed, another asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of Mohammed can never be justified, 24% disagreed.

You are talking about one of the other questions.

See table 14 in this survey.

Ah, thanks for provinding an actual source, you know, so I can work out what you are actually talking about.

The 24% number looks bad until you look at the question next to it which states "Organizations which publish images of the Prophet Muhammed deserve to be attacked." Which is agreed with by only 11% of those surveyed. Essentially it is the same question with more emphasis, which makes no sense for it to conflict with the other question you cited. They published the scariest looking result but at least half of it is down to the fact people didn't understand the question, plus a lot of sample bias and natural variance in a survey composed of no more than a thousand people.

30% of American Republicans want to bomb Agrabah, a fictional city set in the Disney film Alladin. It is not going to happen. 11% is not a big deal.

But you know, well done for cherry-picking a stat to suit your warped sectarian agenda. It is endorsed by the BBC! I'm sure somewhere a far right psycho is reading this and will firebomb a mosque for you.

[Kalis]

Ah, thanks for provinding an actual source, you know, so I can work out what you are actually talking about.

That was from the BBC link.

The 24% number looks bad until you look at the question next to it which states "Organizations which publish images of the Prophet Muhammed deserve to be attacked." Which is agreed with by only 11% of those surveyed. Essentially it is the same question with more emphasis, which makes no sense for it to conflict with the other question you cited. They published the scariest looking result but at least half of it seems to be down to the fact people didn't understand the question, plus there's a lot of sample bias and natural variance in a survey composed of no more than a thousand people.

30% of American Republicans want to bomb Agrabah, a fictional city set in the Disney film Alladin. It is not going to happen. 11% is not a big deal.

Only 11%? That’s a quarter of a million people in the UK who think publishing cartoons they don’t like merits being attacked.