BREAKING: "Firearms incident" outside UK parliament

[Victorian Gray]

Got to love the media. A radical Muslim runs over a couple dozen people, murders a cop with knives, and is shot, and it's a "firearms incident".

nm - was looking at the wrong link and my comment was wrong.

 

[WelshBloke]

Theres a lot of overly sensitive people in the US that seem hell bent on being offended by trivial issues related to this!

Someones offended that Asian was used. Someone was offended that the term "firearms incident" was used! Someones offended we aren't blaming all the Muslims.

Anything else anyone had their feelings hurt by?

We'll ignore the dead and injured, lets worry about not offending anyones agendas in the reporting!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Theres a lot of overly sensitive people in the US that seem hell bent on being offended by trivial issues related to this!

Someones offended that Asian was used. Someone was offended that the term "firearms incident" was used! Someones offended we aren't blaming all the Muslims.

Anything else anyone had their feelings hurt by?

We'll ignore the dead and injured, lets worry about not offending anyones agendas in the reporting!

The same folks who are always crying the loudest about "PC". Guess it just depends on whose "PC" we're talking about.

 

[Svnla]

Almost impossible to predict and to stop - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/vehicle-attacks-easy-success-challenge-police-46373538

 

[Jaskalas]

Got to love the media. A radical Muslim runs over a couple dozen people, murders a cop with knives, and is shot, and it's a "firearms incident".

Fairly sure the breaking news headline reflects the first piece of information available to the public... that shots were fired.
Most of the info you describe did not exist at the time of "publication".

 

[allisolm]

Anything else anyone had their feelings hurt by?!

Yes. I'm offended that so many people derailed so many pages of the thread arguing about the word Asian when it had absolutely nothing to do with this incident, but there's nothing new about people here doing that.

 

[Svnla]

This guy was convicted of multiple violence offenses before plus the right of privacy vs. public safety - https://www.yahoo.com/tech/uk-police-still-think-westminster-attacker-acted-alone-072859750.html

 

[bshole]

Got to love the media. A radical Muslim runs over a couple dozen people, murders a cop with knives, and is shot, and it's a "firearms incident".

Yea and in the same week, an American airstrike in Mosul kills 200+ innocent civilians and NOBODY gives a F U C K and it is barely mentioned by that same media. Americans may be unable muster up any moral outrage when our military goes around murdering innocent Muslims in large numbers but PLENTY of Muslims can. Remember that many terrorist attacks have a moral reason underpinning them. In some cases, that moral reason is connected closely to actions taken by Western countries in Middle Eastern countries.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yea and in the same week, an American airstrike in Mosul kills 200+ innocent civilians and NOBODY gives a F U C K and it is barely mentioned by that same media. Americans may be unable muster up any moral outrage when our military goes around murdering innocent Muslims in large numbers but PLENTY of Muslims can. Remember that many terrorist attacks have a moral reason underpinning them. In some cases, that moral reason is connected closely to actions taken by Western countries in Middle Eastern countries.

Deliberately running over a bunch of tourists is indefensible.

 

[bshole]

Deliberately running over a bunch of tourists is indefensible.

I agree. Can you agree that murdering 200 innocent Muslims in a terrorist military strike is indefensible? If the American bomber dropped a bomb in an American shopping mall, would you be upset?

 

[WelshBloke]

I agree. Can you agree that murdering 200 innocent Muslims in a terrorist military strike is indefensible?

Yes. But one doesn't excuse or mitigate the other.

If the American bomber dropped a bomb in an American shopping mall, would you be upset?

Of course.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes. But one doesn't excuse or mitigate the other.

I don't think he was saying that. I agree with him in that there's something inherently screwed up in the idea that all of the Western media will shout about it if a few Westerners get killed by foreigners (who aren't acting in any official capacity), but when a state authorised strike kills hundreds of foreign civilians, most of the media goes quiet.

If anything the reaction to the latter should be the opposite, even if we're talking about being purely selfish about it - in that case the message should be "OK, so the state just butchered 200 civilians. Let's assume that each of these civilians had 5 fairly close family members who will be pissed off to say the least. We've just given ISIS 1000 prospective recruits".

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't think he was saying that. I agree with him in that there's something inherently screwed up in the idea that all of the Western media will shout about it if a few Westerners get killed by foreigners (who aren't acting in any official capacity), but when a state authorised strike kills hundreds of foreign civilians, most of the media goes quiet.

If anything the reaction to the latter should be the opposite, even if we're talking about being purely selfish about it - in that case the message should be "OK, so the state just butchered 200 civilians. Let's assume that each of these civilians had 5 fairly close family members who will be pissed off to say the least. We've just given ISIS 1000 prospective recruits".

Oh I agree with that, I think I was arguing that in another thread here.
I just don't like the "you killed X number of civilians therefore I'll kill You number of civilians in retaliation" thing.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes. I'm offended that so many people derailed so many pages of the thread arguing about the word Asian when it had absolutely nothing to do with this incident, but there's nothing new about people here doing that.

Well TBH I wasn't enjoying explaining why they British press and police used the word Asian. I wasn't expecting to need to do it more than once.
What ever happened to people asking questions and listening to the answers?

 

[momeNt]

I agree. Can you agree that murdering 200 innocent Muslims in a terrorist military strike is indefensible? If the American bomber dropped a bomb in an American shopping mall, would you be upset?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/26/middleeast/iraq-mosul-us-airstrikes-civilians/

You probably don't have to worry about your daughter becoming a Muslim if you yourself are going to be radicalized by propaganda. The 200 deaths is a gross exaggeration and it is unclear how many of the deaths were members of ISIS. Stay cynical my friend, don't get sucked in.

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/26/middleeast/iraq-mosul-us-airstrikes-civilians/

You probably don't have to worry about your daughter becoming a Muslim if you yourself are going to be radicalized by propaganda. The 200 deaths is a gross exaggeration and it is unclear how many of the deaths were members of ISIS. Stay cynical my friend, don't get sucked in.

From that article:

A coalition airstrike on an ISIS truck laden with explosives led to the deaths of dozens of civilians in Mosul, a senior Iraqi military officer said Sunday.

Bashar al Kiki, chairman of the Nineveh Provincial Council and the source of the death toll, backed off the figure Sunday, saying that 200 was the death toll from multiple locations, citing his sources. He did not provide further details.

I'm wondering whether we're reading the same article. Where is this "propaganda" exactly, what is your basis for determining its content as that? Have you checked the political leanings of those involved in releasing that figure? And do you think that say 50 civilian deaths is that much more appealing a civilian death toll than 200, when analysing the effectiveness and morality of a military manoeuvre?

 

[momeNt]

From that article:





I'm wondering whether we're reading the same article. Where is this "propaganda" exactly, what is your basis for determining its content as that? Have you checked the political leanings of those involved in releasing that figure? And do you think that say 50 civilian deaths is that much more appealing a civilian death toll than 200, when analysing the effectiveness and morality of a military manoeuvre?

The article I linked isn't the propaganda, there are other sources out there exaggerating the number, CNN is probably providing a more accurate story.

I'm not sure where he is getting the 200 from the single airstrike number. Usually the homegrown variety of terrorist though start by obsessing over the deaths of people in the middle east, then they start watching ISIS videos, they recite the quran, and shoot up an airport. He's been railing on that specific airstrike for a while though, enough that it can be considered an unhealthy fixation which is why I cautioned him about radicalization.

edit: here is another article.

Witnesses reported that IS had previously forced at least 140 civilians into the house to be used as human shields. They also said IS had booby-trapped the house with improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39411102

 

[mikeymikec]

The article I linked isn't the propaganda, there are other sources out there exaggerating the number, CNN is probably providing a more accurate story.

I'm not sure where he is getting the 200 from the single airstrike number. Usually the homegrown variety of terrorist though start by obsessing over the deaths of people in the middle east, then they start watching ISIS videos, they recite the quran, and shoot up an airport. He's been railing on that specific airstrike for a while though, enough that it can be considered an unhealthy fixation which is why I cautioned him about radicalization.

edit: here is another article.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39411102

So your use of the word propaganda was just plain BS, OK.

As for where he got the 200 figure from, it was likely from a thread I posted, which included a link to that well-known propaganda site, the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39383989

 

[momeNt]

So your use of the word propaganda was just plain BS, OK.

As for where he got the 200 figure from, it was likely from a thread I posted, which included a link to that well-known propaganda site, the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39383989

Considering his obsession with that story, don't you think he would have read by now that that number is far lower and includes terrorists?

He may or may not have started to read propaganda, I'm just cautioning that continued obsession will possibly lead to reading ISIS propaganda literature and potential radicalization.

 

[mikeymikec]

Considering his obsession with that story, don't you think he would have read by now that that number is far lower and includes terrorists?

He may or may not have started to read propaganda, I'm just cautioning that continued obsession will possibly lead to reading ISIS propaganda literature and potential radicalization.

What basis do you have for asserting that he is displaying obsessive behaviour regarding that story?

 

[momeNt]

What basis do you have for asserting that he is displaying obsessive behaviour regarding that story?

Yea and in the same week, an American airstrike in Mosul kills 200+ innocent civilians and NOBODY gives a F U C K and it is barely mentioned by that same media. Americans may be unable muster up any moral outrage when our military goes around murdering innocent Muslims in large numbers but PLENTY of Muslims can. Remember that many terrorist attacks have a moral reason underpinning them. In some cases, that moral reason is connected closely to actions taken by Western countries in Middle Eastern countries.

He already has begun sympathizing. Also look at the OP, and look at the subject of the post. Completely unrelated yet he brings it up here. Perhaps not obsessive behavior, definitely curious though.

 

[bshole]

Considering his obsession with that story, don't you think he would have read by now that that number is far lower and includes terrorists?

He may or may not have started to read propaganda, I'm just cautioning that continued obsession will possibly lead to reading ISIS propaganda literature and potential radicalization.

Spending trillions of dollars to bomb third world nations who have no way to defend themselves helps America how? Please be specific. Note: I don't consider fatter profits for American munitions manufacturers or the extinction of all of Saudi Arabia's enemies to necessarily to be in America's long term geo-political interests.

If you can stand it, just look at the record: 1) “Dual containment” in the Gulf helped convince bin Laden to launch the 9/11 attacks; 2) two decades of U.S. stewardship over the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” has killed off the “two-state solution” that Washington favored; 3) the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a policy blunder of vast proportions whose ill effects continue to multiply; 4) U.S. interference in Libya, Somalia, and Yemen helped create failed states there, too; and 5) Washington has not exactly covered itself in glory in Syria either. Given that record, it is hardly surprising that Americans and Middle Easterners openly question what the U.S. role should be and why some of us think trying to “manage” the Middle East is a fool’s errand.

 

[momeNt]

Spending trillions of dollars to bomb third world nations who have no way to defend themselves helps America how? Please be specific. Note: I don't consider fatter profits for American munitions manufacturers or the extinction of all of Saudi Arabia's enemies to necessarily to be in America's long term geo-political interests.

Saying we shouldn't be in a war with the middle east and sympathizing with terrorists are different things. All things considered I'm not happy with our continued presence in the Middle East, but I will never sympathize or ever pretend that an attack on British or American civilians is justified.

 

[mikeymikec]

He already has begun sympathizing. Also look at the OP, and look at the subject of the post. Completely unrelated yet he brings it up here. Perhaps not obsessive behavior, definitely curious though.

As far as ad hominem attacks go, yours was pretty low.

Furthermore, it wasn't "completely unrelated", the OP is about a terrorist incident, bshole responded to someone's point about the media response to such incidents, and do you really need me to join the freaking dots between terrorist events committed by so-called Muslims and counter-terrorism against what appears to be the same organisation? Terrorism and counter-terrorism events (assuming affiliations are the same) are inherently linked; counter-terrorism can't even exist without the former.

 

[momeNt]

As far as ad hominem attacks go, yours was pretty low.

Furthermore, it wasn't "completely unrelated", the OP is about a terrorist incident, bshole responded to someone's point about the media response to such incidents, and do you really need me to join the freaking dots between terrorist events committed by so-called Muslims and counter-terrorism against what appears to be the same organisation? Terrorism and counter-terrorism events (assuming affiliations are the same) are inherently linked; counter-terrorism can't even exist without the former.

So quoting his post is ad-hominem? Please.

Few have even said that this was terrorism, I believe most have said he was mentally ill, no?