Islamic Terrorism

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Sadiq Kahn says there's no reason to be alarmed. Nothing to see or worry about herefolks. Carry on.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Don't fall for it, England. Stay strong and resist:

 

Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

 

"The Act, championed by Ms May, requires internet service providers to maintain a list of visited websites for all internet users for a year and gives intelligence agencies more powers to intercept online communications. Police can access the stored browsing history without any warrant or court order."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-internet-regulated-london-bridge-terror-attack-google-facebook-whatsapp-borough-security-a7771896.html

 

 

Theresa May Wants to Deprive Extremists of 'Safe Spaces Online' After London Attack

 

"But the government's plans to ban end-to-end encrypted messaging services fell through after much criticism from rights and privacy campaigners. Those plans are likely to be on the table again soon though, after May puts technology in the forefront of her focus to battle terror, and after Britain suffers its third terror attack in just three months."

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/theresa-may-wants-to-deprive-extremists-of-safe-spaces-online-after-london-attack

 

 

...And of course know who your true enemy is:

 

'Sensitive' UK terror funding inquiry may never be published

Investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK understood to focus on Saudi Arabia

 

“It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.”

The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.

Last December, a leaked report from Germany’s federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it “a long-term strategy of influence”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Ms May:

 

How about you deny them safe spaces to worship?

That would be more effective.

[4merper4mer]

But John Kerry told me that air-conditioning is just as deadly as ISIS: Time for a Terrorism Accord, Not a Climate Accord, Roger Simon writes.

 

 

(No really, Kerry actually said that.)

 

 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF LONDON ARE BRAVER THAN THEIR GOVERNMENT. And smarter

 

 

 

London’s Mayor sticks with “safest global city in the world” line

I wonder what percentage of John Kerry's air conditioning his rich wife pats for. That dude is the ultimate loser.

[Justice]

Why doesn't the Left call this what it is? And I don't just mean Islamic Terrorism

 

You have one ethnic group attacking another ethnic group. If the perpetrators had been white there would be cries of racism©. But since the perpetrators are brown skinned, why the fear to call this what it is?

The only problem with that, and I can't believe I have to repeat this thousands of times, over 80% of their victims are from their own kind.

Don't fall for it, England. Stay strong and resist:

 

Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

 

"The Act, championed by Ms May, requires internet service providers to maintain a list of visited websites for all internet users for a year and gives intelligence agencies more powers to intercept online communications. Police can access the stored browsing history without any warrant or court order."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-internet-regulated-london-bridge-terror-attack-google-facebook-whatsapp-borough-security-a7771896.html

 

 

Theresa May Wants to Deprive Extremists of 'Safe Spaces Online' After London Attack

 

"But the government's plans to ban end-to-end encrypted messaging services fell through after much criticism from rights and privacy campaigners. Those plans are likely to be on the table again soon though, after May puts technology in the forefront of her focus to battle terror, and after Britain suffers its third terror attack in just three months."

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/theresa-may-wants-to-deprive-extremists-of-safe-spaces-online-after-london-attack

 

 

...And of course know who your true enemy is:

 

 

'Sensitive' UK terror funding inquiry may never be published

 

 

 

Investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK understood to focus on Saudi Arabia

It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.

The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.

Last December, a leaked report from Germanys federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it a long-term strategy of influence.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia

 

I don't see any problem with that. Why not? It can be an extremely useful tool to prevent the spread of terrorism. What do you have to hide?

[DC Tom]

I don't see any problem with that. Why not? It can be an extremely useful tool to prevent the spread of terrorism.

 

Because it targets "extremists," the definition of which is in the eye of the person doing the regulation and deprivation.

 

Which makes it a very short step from banning "extremism" on the internet, to banning Islam (ask JSP). Or global warming denial. Or any criticism of a black president.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Because it targets "extremists," the definition of which is in the eye of the person doing the regulation and deprivation.

 

Which makes it a very short step from banning "extremism" on the internet, to banning Islam (ask JSP). Or global warming denial. Or any criticism of a black president.

Hey, if people want to practice Islam in their own backwater, have at it. Just don't bring it here.

[Deranged Rhino]

I don't see any problem with that. Why not? It can be an extremely useful tool to prevent the spread of terrorism. What do you have to hide?

As Tom said, it's about the unintended consequences that always come from taking such drastic measures as restricting civil liberties. Especially when you're advocating doing so in order to fight a nebulous, undefined "tactic" (not enemy, terrorism is a tactic).

 

As usual, the Simpsons provide an excellent example:

 

[B-Man]

People are starting to come to a conclusion , not anti-Islam, not that "all terrorist are Muslim",

 

but that belief in Islam is a necessary condition of radicalization into Islamism.

 

What is termed radical Islam or Islamism represents a form of Islam.

 

It is a form of Islam with which we cannot live.

 

 

 

Killing In The Name Of: Stop Using Other Religions To Excuse Islamic Terrorism

 

At risk of assigning a “clash of civilizations” justification for what happened last night in London (although I am sympathetic to the idea that, for Islamists, the Crusades have not yet ended), there is a disturbing trend that pops up each time these nasty little thugs mow people down or blow children up “for Allah”.

 

There are people who simply cannot accept that religious fanaticism of the kind that seeks complete submission to doctrine is to blame for the indiscriminate stabbing, vehicular homicide, dirty-bomb detonating crazies we’ve seen in London of late. What’s more, they cannot resist creating a false equivalency between deaths carried out under the doctrine of Islamic religious fanaticism and other mass killings, to the point that they make things up that simply aren’t there.

 

I give you Clinton Global Initiative consultant and Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Peter Daou:

 

Follow

Peter Daou

✔@peterdaou

Can someone please explain why religion is never mentioned when an evil coward guns down children in an American school?#LondonBridge

7:03 PM - 3 Jun 2017

 

 

Implicit in this ridiculous statement is, of course, that either A) there was a religious motivating factor behind the Newtown massacre (to use one example of a school shooting), or B) that we’re all really biased and racist and Islamophobic for bringing up the London Bridge killers’ devotion to that religion.

So, taken in turn: A) the killers in school shootings in America, to the best of my knowledge, do not claim the innocent victims’ lives in the name of their God, and B) the killers in London did.

This is not rocket science, brain surgery, organic chemistry or any other complicated endeavor. And Mr. Daou’s attempt to complicate it is grotesque. If someone tells you they are killing in the name of their God, it is best to believe them. And if you, Mr. Daou, and others like you, like this fellow (and he’s just one of very many spouting this stuff on Twitter right now):

Follow

Mateusz Tomkowiak @itomkowiak

Good idea. So, how will you protect us from far-right extremist, white-nationalist and Christian supremacists? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871325606901895168 …

7:38 AM - 4 Jun 2017

• 
  

want to persist in not taking these Islamists at their word, that’s your prerogative. But to shame others for understanding what’s going on — and to suggest that their religion may be just as bad — makes you a pernicious fool.

 

[Justice]

<p>

People are starting to come to a conclusion , not anti-Islam, not that "all terrorist are Muslim",

 

but that belief in Islam is a necessary condition of radicalization into Islamism.

 

What is termed radical Islam or Islamism represents a form of Islam.

 

It is a form of Islam with which we cannot live.

 

 

Killing In The Name Of: Stop Using Other Religions To Excuse Islamic Terrorism

 

At risk of assigning a clash of civilizations justification for what happened last night in London (although I am sympathetic to the idea that, for Islamists, the Crusades have not yet ended), there is a disturbing trend that pops up each time these nasty little thugs mow people down or blow children up for Allah.

 

There are people who simply cannot accept that religious fanaticism of the kind that seeks complete submission to doctrine is to blame for the indiscriminate stabbing, vehicular homicide, dirty-bomb detonating crazies weve seen in London of late. Whats more, they cannot resist creating a false equivalency between deaths carried out under the doctrine of Islamic religious fanaticism and other mass killings, to the point that they make things up that simply arent there.

 

I give you Clinton Global Initiative consultant and Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Peter Daou:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Peter Daou

✔@peterdaou

 

Can someone please explain why religion is never mentioned when an evil coward guns down children in an American school?#LondonBridge

7:03 PM - 3 Jun 2017

 

 

Implicit in this ridiculous statement is, of course, that either A) there was a religious motivating factor behind the Newtown massacre (to use one example of a school shooting), or B) that were all really biased and racist and Islamophobic for bringing up the London Bridge killers devotion to that religion.

So, taken in turn: A) the killers in school shootings in America, to the best of my knowledge, do not claim the innocent victims lives in the name of their God, and B) the killers in London did.

This is not rocket science, brain surgery, organic chemistry or any other complicated endeavor. And Mr. Daous attempt to complicate it is grotesque. If someone tells you they are killing in the name of their God, it is best to believe them. And if you, Mr. Daou, and others like you, like this fellow (and hes just one of very many spouting this stuff on Twitter right now):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Mateusz Tomkowiak @itomkowiak

 

Good idea. So, how will you protect us from far-right extremist, white-nationalist and Christian supremacists? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871325606901895168

7:38 AM - 4 Jun 2017

want to persist in not taking these Islamists at their word, thats your prerogative. But to shame others for understanding whats going on and to suggest that their religion may be just as bad makes you a pernicious fool.

 

Well if the religion is bad then it should be easy for you and many others to reveal the text in the Quran that make it bad. The problem with religion is general is the interpretation of it by some. Religion will always be flawed because man is flawed. I know plenty of people that purchase something from IKEA or something like that and can't follow the instructions properly and end up ruining their product and then there are others that follow it perfectly and everything comes out great.

 

Furthermore, you want to call it a bad religion but you can't/won't see the charity Muslims provide, the prayers they make 5 times a day, the refrainment of drug or alcohol usage, the conservative dress code, the fasting we do in order to sympathize with the less fortunate etc etc etc.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Justice

[RaoulDuke79]

[/size]

 

Implicit in this ridiculous statement is, of course, that either A) there was a religious motivating factor behind the Newtown massacre (to use one example of a school shooting), or B) that were all really biased and racist and Islamophobic for bringing up the London Bridge killers devotion to that religion.

So, taken in turn: A) the killers in school shootings in America, to the best of my knowledge, do not claim the innocent victims lives in the name of their God, and B) the killers in London did.

This is not rocket science, brain surgery, organic chemistry or any other complicated endeavor. And Mr. Daous attempt to complicate it is grotesque. If someone tells you they are killing in the name of their God, it is best to believe them. And if you, Mr. Daou, and others like you, like this fellow (and hes just one of very many spouting this stuff on Twitter right now):

 

 

want to persist in not taking these Islamists at their word, thats your prerogative. But to shame others for understanding whats going on and to suggest that their religion may be just as bad makes you a pernicious fool.

 

Well if the religion is bad then it should be easy for you and many others to reveal the text in the Quran that make it bad. The problem with religion is general is the interpretation of it by some. Religion will always be flawed because man is flawed. I know plenty of people that purchase something from IKEA or something like that and can't follow the instructions properly and end up ruining their product and then there are others that follow it perfectly and everything comes out great.

Furthermore, you want to call it a bad religion but you can't/won't see the charity Muslims provide, the prayers they make 5 times a day, the refrainment of drug or alcohol usage, the conservative dress code, the fasting we do in order to sympathize with the less fortunate etc etc etc.

You make a good analogy, but it seems there are alot more individuals that are having a problem interpreting the Quran "properly" than any other religious book. And the problem with that is a bunch of people die when that happens.

[Justice]

You make a good analogy, but it seems there are alot more individuals that are having a problem interpreting the Quran "properly" than any other religious book. And the problem with that is a bunch of people die when that happens.

That I can't argue with. They (terrorists) are an enemy to all. The fact that they target Muslims more than anyone else should tell you they're not Islamic at all, but since most everyone ignores those attacks on Muslims by ISIS and the like make it difficult to get that point across. In the end it's all about what it's always about. Power and money.

[Benjamin Franklin]

You make a good analogy, but it seems there are alot more individuals that are having a problem interpreting the Quran "properly" than any other religious book. And the problem with that is a bunch of people die when that happens.

Bad people are using Islam as a tool to get and hold power. The Quran is there hot tool today. Yesterday it was the Bible. Tomorrow it will be Dianetics. Bad people can always find a way to manipulate the weak minded.

[Justice]

I'm just tired of the people that say, "see? It's them against us" and conveniently leave out all the Muslim victims as if they didn't happen or don't count as human lives. They do it to strengthen their beliefs. They do it prove their point. Muslims are bad. They want to kill all the infidels. Must be nice going through life with blinders on like that.

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm just tired of the people that say, "see? It's them against us" and conveniently leave out all the Muslim victims as if they didn't happen or don't count as human lives. They do it to strengthen their beliefs. They do it prove their point. Muslims are bad. They want to kill all the infidels. Must be nice going through life with blinders on like that.

It is them against us. It's just the "them" in that equation is not Muslims and never has been.

 

How did Wahhabisim actually start? It was fostered by the British who wanted to undercut the Ottoman Empire in the 1700s. Then the Germans in the late eighteenth and through the nineteenth century introduced the concept of extending jihad to secular targets and nations in an effort to undermine the British colonies in the ME. Who is Britian's largest arms buyer? The Saudis. Who is at the heart of funding ISIS and spreading a corrupted form of Islam to serve their own ends? The Saudis... Along with many western powers.

 

Islam isn't the problem. Wahhabisim is a problem - but not as much as those who use it as fuel for their proxies to wage war against their enemies... And those people are largely not Muslim.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[grinreaper]

Bad people are using Islam as a tool to get and hold power. The Quran is there hot tool today. Yesterday it was the Bible. Tomorrow it will be Dianetics. Bad people can always find a way to manipulate the weak minded.

Horseshit. Todays killers indiscriminately kill others and do it in as cruel of a way as possible. They are a segment of Islam who hasn't grown out of the dark ages but they have modern weapons to use on people when they aren't beheading them with a scimitar.

[bbb]

Hey, if people want to practice Islam in their own backwater, have at it. Just don't bring it here.

 

That's exactly how I feel about soccer

[Foxx]

Bad people are using Islam as a tool to get and hold power. The Quran is there hot tool today. Yesterday it was the Bible. Tomorrow it will be Dianetics. Bad people can always find a way to manipulate the weak minded.

didn't John Travolta and Tom Cruise already have their day in the sun?

[grinreaper]

didn't John Travolta and Tom Cruise already have their day in the sun?

You misheard that. They had there thing where the sun doesn't shine.

[Doc Brown]

It is them against us. It's just the "them" in that equation is not Muslims and never has been.

 

How did Wahhabisim actually start? It was fostered by the British who wanted to undercut the Ottoman Empire in the 1700s. Then the Germans in the late eighteenth and through the nineteenth century introduced the concept of extending jihad to secular targets and nations in an effort to undermine the British colonies in the ME. Who is Britian's largest arms buyer? The Saudis. Who is at the heart of funding ISIS and spreading a corrupted form of Islam to serve their own ends? The Saudis... Along with many western powers.

 

Islam isn't the problem. Wahhabisim is a problem - but not as much as those who use it as fuel for their proxies to wage war against their enemies... And those people are largely not Muslim.

Spot on and the recent $110 billion Saudi Arabia arms deal continues America's long practice of putting defense contractors interests in front of national security interests. Same goes for the UK.