bloody norah... :-(

[Montreal Wanderer]

am reading today a report* about terrorism trends over the last 10 yrs...

interestingly... in 2011 it is reckoned that Al Quaida-inspired terrorism accounted for 700 attacks and resulted in 2000 deaths... next down the list - Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities....

so - secular, political and anarchist terrorists conduct MORE terrorist attacks than Al Quaida - but with less death-impact per attack...

I didn't know this... it doesn't add anything much to the incident yesterday (or on Monday) - but I thought it was interesting in that it doesn't appear to be the popular conception that there even IS any terrorism outside of some kind of religious sphere...


* - the US Dept of State National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information

I'm not sure that is really the popular conception. I don't think anyone really even talks about the IRA shit as being 'religiously motivated'. Doesn't alter that some of it almost certainly is. Even if you don't buy the motivation (I do, I think you need a really powerful tool to get someone to do that, and 'God' is certainly that), it's at least couched in religious terms.

People do bad terroristy things for reasons other than religion, I *reckon* probably mostly political but, unless it's massively wide-spread and slipped under my radar, I'm yet to hear of anybody non-religious killing anybody else because of their religion.

I'm not quite sure who the "their" refers to in your last awkward sentence. Yet the Communist Chinese (non-religious by definition) have certainly persecuted and killed others because of their religion (Buddhists and more recently Falun Gong). I'm sure the same may be true of other atheistic dictatorships.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

If someone commits an atrocity with a gun, we have to talk about gun ownership afterwards despite the fact that the vast majority of gun owners would never dream of turning one on another human unless in an extreme situation necessitating self defence.

When someone commits an atrocity shouting 'Allahu Akbar' then it seems fairly obvious to me that Islamic extremism will form a significant part of the conversation afterwards.

However, and maybe it's a bit trite to say so, but a good measure of a civilised society is how it responds to barbarity. What's the point in an intolerant backlash against an entire religion that isn't going away anytime soon? What's the point in the 'hanging is too good for them' talionic response?

And as with the school shootings, we have made the same mistake of giving these guys far too much personal coverage. Why give them the fame and platform they dearly wanted and encourage the next one?

[Prufrock]

am reading today a report* about terrorism trends over the last 10 yrs...

interestingly... in 2011 it is reckoned that Al Quaida-inspired terrorism accounted for 700 attacks and resulted in 2000 deaths... next down the list - Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities....

so - secular, political and anarchist terrorists conduct MORE terrorist attacks than Al Quaida - but with less death-impact per attack...

I didn't know this... it doesn't add anything much to the incident yesterday (or on Monday) - but I thought it was interesting in that it doesn't appear to be the popular conception that there even IS any terrorism outside of some kind of religious sphere...


* - the US Dept of State National Counterterrorism Center: Annex of Statistical Information

I'm not sure that is really the popular conception. I don't think anyone really even talks about the IRA shit as being 'religiously motivated'. Doesn't alter that some of it almost certainly is. Even if you don't buy the motivation (I do, I think you need a really powerful tool to get someone to do that, and 'God' is certainly that), it's at least couched in religious terms.

People do bad terroristy things for reasons other than religion, I *reckon* probably mostly political but, unless it's massively wide-spread and slipped under my radar, I'm yet to hear of anybody non-religious killing anybody else because of their religion.

I'm not quite sure who the "their" refers to in your last awkward sentence. Yet the Communist Chinese (non-religious by definition) have certainly persecuted and killed others because of their religion (Buddhists and more recently Falun Gong). I'm sure the same may be true of other atheistic dictatorships.

It is awkward, and I wouldn't mind, I completely f*cked up what I was trying to say! 'Because of their religion'. is wrong, grammatically, AND in terms of what I mean. I'll try again. I don't know of any stories where somebody non-religious has killed anyone else because that person was religious.

I don't, actually, think it's ever that simple that Person X says 'I'm killing you because you don't believe in God, or because you believe in a different God'. I do sometimes think it plays a part, major or minor. I don't think there's ever really a Person Y who says, 'I'm killing you because you believe in a God at all'.

Anyway, after the last time this kinda shit went down - if I were David Luiz, Oscar or Ramires, I'd not be getting the tube any time soon!

[Prufrock]

If someone commits an atrocity with a gun, we have to talk about gun ownership afterwards despite the fact that the vast majority of gun owners would never dream of turning one on another human unless in an extreme situation necessitating self defence.

When someone commits an atrocity shouting 'Allahu Akbar' then it seems fairly obvious to me that Islamic extremism will form a significant part of the conversation afterwards.

However, and maybe it's a bit trite to say so, but a good measure of a civilised society is how it responds to barbarity. What's the point in an intolerant backlash against an entire religion that isn't going away anytime soon? What's the point in the 'hanging is too good for them' talionic response?

And as with the school shootings, we have made the same mistake of giving these guys far too much personal coverage. Why give them the fame and platform they dearly wanted and encourage the next one?

I'm not sure about that. People are obviously going to cover events such as this in great detail, understandably so. The theory with things like school shootings is that they are vanity causes. The shooter wants the myth of their 'name' and so, there's that idea about not identifying the perpetrators. I don't think that works here. I don't know their names, no-one at work today did, but we were obviously all going to talk about it. Their objective probably isn't the glorification of their own name, but the raising of awareness of their cause (be it Fundamental Islam, Palestine, whatever it turns out to be). I don't think it really works to just not talk about their cause. People want to talk about why people do these sort of things. It's less 'cult of the personality' than your American shooters.

As for the talk of civilised society, I've been pleasantly surprised by the reaction I've actually seen. People I'd expect to be raving about this kind of shit have actually been pretty sane. It's just a few tools I think. I know that contradicts what I wrote above. But last refuge of the unimaginative and all that.

[thebish]

Some kids write on a mosque wall - big whoop.

If a couple of white lads ran over a muslim before hacking him to death - most people would be out with pitchforks.

You mention the religious element in this and the bed-wetters kick up a stink.

Just feck off.

Voice an opinion and you're labelled a racist

Again - just feck off.

I'm off before MI5 come knocking for me not agreeing with the general consensus

oh - quite the opposite - you're pretty much bang on the general consensus if it makes you feel better!

as for you if... muslim.. scenario... at the beginning of this month a defenseless elderly muslim man was brutally stabbed to death on the public street in Birmingham by a white guy...

no pitch forks... no fb outrage... no twitter frenzy... it seems you are wrong...

And it's the same because the perpetrators said something like "For England and St. George"?

Was it racially or religiously motivated? As far as I know, no one has the foggiest clue yet.

I'm sure plenty of people of different ethnicity down the years have killed, without it necessarily being racially or religiously motivated.

i didn't say it was the same, Worthy - I mentioned it to counter the idea that if white people stabbed a muslim then there would always and inevitably be pitchforks... that's all...

[thebish]

You were the one posting shit like this -

Perhaps we should all wait outside a mosque tooled up and hack up the first guy who comes out in a turban. #wankers

I'm sure dumb muslims were posting similar bile, but no, a white fella dies in a racist attack and that's what whoppers like you concentrate on

aye - i posted that! what's your problem? i was merely highlighting the utter ignorance that stalks our streets... I wasn't highlighting the bile - i emboldened two words - mosque and turban...

it is not muslims that generally wear turbans - it is sikhs.. if you wanted to wait for someone to come out with a turban - you'd be better off at the Gurdwara...

i was highlighting the general ignorance sikhs will be abused in the street this week by people who think they are striking a blow back against muslims...

[Prufrock]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't think it really works to just not talk about their cause. People want to talk about why people do these sort of things. It's less 'cult of the personality' than your American shooters.

I've expressly said that we have to talk about their cause.

But I just think showing the video of him expousing his political or religious ideas over and over is a mistake. The impulse to want to 'make a mark on the world' must be similar to the American shooters, in my opinion.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Incidentally, how indicative of modern society is it when people are quicker to whip their mobile phones out and take pictures, than to act or run?!

I have to admit I think I'd have turned and got out of there as fast as I could.

[thebish]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

I can see how that would work if you you were the kind of person who thought it was freakishly clever to know that Sikhs are the ones that wear turbans... but I didn't have you in that category!

[Prufrock]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

I can see how that would work if you you were the kind of person who thought it was freakishly clever to know that Sikhs are the ones that wear turbans... but I didn't have you in that category!

I just meant coz you said 'General Ignorance' which is a round what is on QI

[thebish]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

I can see how that would work if you you were the kind of person who thought it was freakishly clever to know that Sikhs are the ones that wear turbans... but I didn't have you in that category!

I just meant coz you said 'General Ignorance' which is a round what is on QI

ahhhh - subtle - but maybe I was a bit slow!!

[Harry Genshaw]

Tonights local news showing the graffiti on the mosque at Astley Bridge was bad enough, but my heart went out to the guy who got up to go to work and found his van had been vandalised. What blow did these pillocks think they were striking by preventing some ordinary bloke going out to work?

[Prufrock]

I don't think it really works to just not talk about their cause. People want to talk about why people do these sort of things. It's less 'cult of the personality' than your American shooters.

I've expressly said that we have to talk about their cause.

But I just think showing the video of him expousing his political or religious ideas over and over is a mistake. The impulse to want to 'make a mark on the world' must be similar to the American shooters, in my opinion.

I can see that. I've only seen the vids once, which is enough, and haven't really seen the rolling news which I imagine is replaying them forensically. I agree that's a bad idea.

And as for filming stuff, what the feck were they thinking?! I'd have baaaaailled, or frozen, but whipped out my phone?

On another, related point about modern society, particularly in this that London: that woman who barged past him! How self-centred and tunnel-visionned do you have to be that you're so obsessed with getting home that you don't notice a blood-covered raving lunatic brandishing a meat cleaver?!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And as for filming stuff, what the feck were they thinking?! I'd have baaaaailled, or frozen, but whipped out my phone?

To run would be natural - to intervene would be admirable. But the disregard for life (either your own or the man who's been hacked to death on the floor) demonstrated by snapping with your HTC is unbelievable!

[Bruce Rioja]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

I can see how that would work if you you were the kind of person who thought it was freakishly clever to know that Sikhs are the ones that wear turbans... but I didn't have you in that category!

I just meant coz you said 'General Ignorance' which is a round what is on QI

ahhhh - subtle - but maybe I was a bit slow!!

But Pru had made his post before you'd edited yours to include the 'general ignorance' remark.

[Montreal Wanderer]

If someone commits an atrocity with a gun, we have to talk about gun ownership afterwards despite the fact that the vast majority of gun owners would never dream of turning one on another human unless in an extreme situation necessitating self defence.

When someone commits an atrocity shouting 'Allahu Akbar' then it seems fairly obvious to me that Islamic extremism will form a significant part of the conversation afterwards.

However, and maybe it's a bit trite to say so, but a good measure of a civilised society is how it responds to barbarity. What's the point in an intolerant backlash against an entire religion that isn't going away anytime soon? What's the point in the 'hanging is too good for them' talionic response?

And as with the school shootings, we have made the same mistake of giving these guys far too much personal coverage. Why give them the fame and platform they dearly wanted and encourage the next one?

Talionic? I'm impressed - you didn't sleep through every law class.

[Prufrock]

Did you have a cool klaxon noise like what Stephen 'I'm dead clever' Fry has?

I can see how that would work if you you were the kind of person who thought it was freakishly clever to know that Sikhs are the ones that wear turbans... but I didn't have you in that category!

I just meant coz you said 'General Ignorance' which is a round what is on QI

ahhhh - subtle - but maybe I was a bit slow!!

But Pru had made his post before you'd edited yours to include the 'general ignorance' remark.

I hadn't. I don't think the sentence after it was there, but it definitely said 'general ignorance'. It would have been a pretty lucky save on my part if I was being a dick, specifically referencing Stephen Fry, and then bish had stuck in those precise words afterwards!

[jaffka]

And as for filming stuff, what the feck were they thinking?! I'd have baaaaailled, or frozen, but whipped out my phone?

To run would be natural - to intervene would be admirable. But the disregard for life (either your own or the man who's been hacked to death on the floor) demonstrated by snapping with your HTC is unbelievable!

One of the three things that happens under stress, fight, fly and freeze.

I am with you on the self preservation, get the hell and my loved ones out of there.

[Prufrock]

And as for filming stuff, what the feck were they thinking?! I'd have baaaaailled, or frozen, but whipped out my phone?

To run would be natural - to intervene would be admirable. But the disregard for life (either your own or the man who's been hacked to death on the floor) demonstrated by snapping with your HTC is unbelievable!

Come now. We all know they were on iphones

Yeah, I'd like to think I'd have intervened but I definitely wouldn't. I'd have either run, or been cowering behind a bin with my head in my hands Sims-style.