California mosque arson: Questions of 'white terrorism' raised over Friday prayers 'firebombing'

A 23-year-old man has been charged with a hate crime after a mosque in California was reportedly “firebombed” with people inside, prompting renewed focus on how such incidents are reported. The incident occurred during Friday prayers at the Islamic Society of Coachella Valley, around 75 miles away from the scene of the San Bernardino shootings last week. Carl James Dial Jr was arrested later on Friday and faces charges of arson, a hate crime and burglary, police said. In an interview with NBC News, his parents were quoted as calling him a “loner” and stressing that he was innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-mosque-arson-questions-of-white-terrorism-raised-over-friday-prayers-firebombing-a6771641.html

Two points here and one is idiotic to speculate off, if this is an anti-Muslim hate crime.
Did the attacker use violence as a means for political aims?
If not it cannot be terrorism.
If he did based off say based off Trumps views to basically instill fear that Muslims leave the country, then that could very much be classed as terrorism, as that then has political aims.
But the point on "white" is very much idiotic, just because the suspect is white, does not mean that individual holds white supremacist views.
I mean can you imagine the uproar if say for example two ethnic Pakistani's committed a terrorist act and it was referred to as Asian terrorism?

Hate crimes, terrorism crimes often have the same results.

This Muslim scourge is spreading faster than Louis Hamilton can drive.
I foresee much, many more attacks on Muslims and mosques throughout the world as no one wants either in THEIR countries.

This is mainly a Christian country and the aim of Muslims is to take us over religiously and wholesale.

Will some please tell me why they personally support this Muslim takeover and why they think Muslims BENEFIT this island?

Sensible replies only.

Thank you.

There are some Muslims who do believe that it is a duty for Islam to take hold everywhere. There is others that do not storme. I have no issue with anyone being in this soceity as long as this soceity applies to the well being and equality for all people. The stancce to scare over a takeover when there is only 3 million Muslims out of a population of 62 million , is irrational at best. It would take near half of the population to convert where the fastest growing view point as that is better to say that belief, ois Athiesm, which is non-belief. The highest birth rates are now for Polish, which are Christian. So I agree, that for some Muslims the aim is for Islam to take over, but for others it is not, though some regressive lefties this is also the case. Where once this was very much a pagan land and then Christianity once took over as well, which now we are seeing this religion in decline, which I believe will happen the same to Islam. So I do not think anyone actually supports a Muslim takeover, well, maybe a couple of posters on here. Now I believe Islam needs to adapt and they need to throw away the hadiths, as they corrupt the religion and make the Quran redundent as a claim to a last mesaage. Islam like Chritianity ended up doing, needs to adpat, but this is difficult again being off the view, they view this as the last message from this mythical deity. But there is no a growing amount of reformers, which can only be a good thing which we should stand behind and support.

Catch you later

Anyway this is a thread on the topic on whether this is a hate crime or terrorism to Muslims, so lets try and keep that as the bases for the topic.

Thanks and see you later

What takeover?

The table below shows data regarding religion for the 2001 and 2011 censuses:
[th]Religion[/th][th]2001^{[43][44][45][46]}[/th][th]2011^{[47][48][49][50]}[/th][th]Number[/th][th]%[/th][th]Number[/th][th]%[/th]

Christian	42,079,417	71.58%	37,583,962	59.49%
Muslim	1,591,126	2.71%	2,786,635	4.41%
Hindu	558,810	0.95%	835,394	1.32%
Sikh	336,149	0.57%	432,429	0.68%
Jewish	266,740	0.45%	269,568	0.43%
Buddhist	151,816	0.26%	261,584	0.41%
Other religion	178,837	0.30%	262,774	0.42%
No religion			16,221,509	25.67%
Religion not stated			4,528,323	7.17%
(No religion and Religion not stated)	13,626,299	23.18%	20,749,832	32.84%
Total population	58,789,194	100.00%	63,182,178	100.00%

These figures represent a decrease of 11% in the number of people identifying themselves as Christian in the 10-year period from 2001 to 2011, and an increase of 52% in the number of people stating that they have no religion.<sup>[51]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion</sup>

The word "terrorism" has a very loose meaning these days. An attack of this kind could be revenge without a plan to change anything politically. That could also apply to the murder of Lee Rigby, and the San Bernardino shootings.

I'd be interested to know if the lefties think that any Muslim who is now afraid of such attacks is a "coward".

sassy wrote:What takeover?

The table below shows data regarding religion for the 2001 and 2011 censuses:
[th]Religion[/th][th]2001^{[43][44][45][46]}[/th][th]2011^{[47][48][49][50]}[/th][th]Number[/th][th]%[/th][th]Number[/th][th]%[/th]

Christian	42,079,417	71.58%	37,583,962	59.49%
Muslim	1,591,126	2.71%	2,786,635	4.41%
Hindu	558,810	0.95%	835,394	1.32%
Sikh	336,149	0.57%	432,429	0.68%
Jewish	266,740	0.45%	269,568	0.43%
Buddhist	151,816	0.26%	261,584	0.41%
Other religion	178,837	0.30%	262,774	0.42%
No religion			16,221,509	25.67%
Religion not stated			4,528,323	7.17%
(No religion and Religion not stated)	13,626,299	23.18%	20,749,832	32.84%
Total population	58,789,194	100.00%	63,182,178	100.00%

These figures represent a decrease of 11% in the number of people identifying themselves as Christian in the 10-year period from 2001 to 2011, and an increase of 52% in the number of people stating that they have no religion.<sup>[51]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion</sup>

TERRORISM to me is doing anything against my country by foreigners which harms it.

THIS TAKEOVER to answer you, ghettos in these areas.
Bolton
Blackburn, Bradford
Luton
Birmingham
Coventry
Manchester
Rotherham
London Boroughs

AND MANY MORE

I suppose if you live a sheltered life in the sticks you will not be aware of this Muslum scourge ON OUR ISLAND, on the other hand,
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE.

These are just a few areas that have been taken over by Muslums, glad to have helped.

And no, it shouldn't be called "white terrorism" because we don't refer to "black terrorism" or "Asian terrorism".

Raggamuffin wrote:The word "terrorism" has a very loose meaning these days. An attack of this kind could be revenge without a plan to change anything politically. That could also apply to the murder of Lee Rigby, and the San Bernardino shootings.

I'd be interested to know if the lefties think that any Muslim who is now afraid of such attacks is a "coward".

Indeed Rags

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The word "terrorism" has a very loose meaning these days. An attack of this kind could be revenge without a plan to change anything politically. That could also apply to the murder of Lee Rigby, and the San Bernardino shootings.

I'd be interested to know if the lefties think that any Muslim who is now afraid of such attacks is a "coward".

Indeed Rags

That business about calling people "cowards" of "chicken" for being afraid of terrorist attacks was really out of order. I bet those who said it wouldn't say it about Muslims, or anyone who wasn't white.

Raggamuffin wrote:And no, it shouldn't be called "white terrorism" because we don't refer to "black terrorism" or "Asian terrorism".

It could be refer to white supremacist terrorism, if there was a connection, but we have as you sat and I have said not referred to the 9/11 terrorism as Arab terrorism or 7/7 terrorism as asian terrorism as it basically places so many groups of people under one hat and is essentially racist to refer to terrorism that way

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:And no, it shouldn't be called "white terrorism" because we don't refer to "black terrorism" or "Asian terrorism".

It could be refer to white supremacist terrorism, if there was a connection, but we have as you sat and I have said not referred to the 9/11 terrorism as Arab terrorism or 7/7 terrorism as asian terrorism as it basically places so many groups of people under one hat and is essentially racist to refer to terrorism that way

It might not be related to any sense of supremacy anyway. We don't say that Islamic terrorism is related to a sense of supremacy, even though some of the perpetrators do think that an Islamic state would be superior to any other kind.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Indeed Rags

That business about calling people "cowards" of "chicken" for being afraid of terrorist attacks was really out of order.

I agree it is, but one thing that can be said is that we should show defiance to terrorism.
I mean if people are afraid of spiders are they cowards?
No thy have a genuine fear, just as people have a genuine fear of walking outside and a geuine fear to some of terrorism, as it is the type of possible death that instills fear

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


It could be refer to white supremacist terrorism, if there was a connection, but we have as you sat and I have said not referred to the 9/11 terrorism as Arab terrorism or 7/7 terrorism as asian terrorism as it basically places so many groups of people under one hat and is essentially racist to refer to terrorism that way

It might not be related to any sense of supremacy anyway. We don't say that Islamic terrorism is related to a sense of supremacy, even though some of the perpetrators do think that an Islamic state would be superior to any other kind.

I doubt that it is related and to me it is like I say idiotic to refer to terrorism this way based solely on the suspect being white

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That business about calling people "cowards" of "chicken" for being afraid of terrorist attacks was really out of order.

I agree it is, but one thing that can be said is that we should show defiance to terrorism.
I mean if people are afraid of spiders are they cowards?
No thy have a genuine fear, just as people have a genuine fear of walking outside and a geuine fear to some of terrorism, as it is the type of possible death that instills fear

It depends if it's affecting your life to the extent that it's becoming a problem. I would always advise people to try to get over their fear of spiders because they're common, and if they can't go into a room where there's a spider, obviously that's affecting them. If people are letting the fear of terrorism stop them from leaving their house or going to a certain place, that might affect them. However, I don't think it's cowardly to be afraid of terrorism, and I don't think that avoiding certain places or cities would necessarily affect someone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I agree it is, but one thing that can be said is that we should show defiance to terrorism.
I mean if people are afraid of spiders are they cowards?
No thy have a genuine fear, just as people have a genuine fear of walking outside and a geuine fear to some of terrorism, as it is the type of possible death that instills fear

It depends if it's affecting your life to the extent that it's becoming a problem. I would always advise people to try to get over their fear of spiders because they're common, and if they can't go into a room where there's a spider, obviously that's affecting them. If people are letting the fear of terrorism stop them from leaving their house or going to a certain place, that might affect them. However, I don't think it's cowardly to be afraid of terrorism, and I don't think that avoiding certain places or cities would necessarily affect someone.

Again Rags, I do not disagree its wrong to label people cowards for being afraid of terrorism, but again the reality is and have spoken on this with victor it is the media and perceptions that are driving this and fueling this fear. It is doubtful people would be so in fear of terrorism and instead more fearsful of rape, if rapes were plastered all over the news everyday. The media and what it shows does have a wany of manipulating how we perceive things.

So I do not think people are cowards for being so, and completely blame the media, even more so when the proability of dying from other daily things is far more probable. Again the one thing that we should be is defiant, otherwise one of the main objectives of terrorism has succeeded. Which is easier said than done for people in fear.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends if it's affecting your life to the extent that it's becoming a problem. I would always advise people to try to get over their fear of spiders because they're common, and if they can't go into a room where there's a spider, obviously that's affecting them. If people are letting the fear of terrorism stop them from leaving their house or going to a certain place, that might affect them. However, I don't think it's cowardly to be afraid of terrorism, and I don't think that avoiding certain places or cities would necessarily affect someone.

Again Rags, I do not disagree its wrong to label people cowards for being afraid of terrorism, but again the reality is and have spoken on this with victor it is the media and perceptions that are driving this and fueling this fear. It is doubtful people would be so in fear of terrorism and instead more fearsful of rape, if rapes were plastered all over the news everyday. The media and what it shows does have a wany of manipulating how we perceive things.

So I do not think people are cowards for being so, and completely blame the media, even more so when the proability of dying from other daily things is far more probable. Again the one thing that we should be is defiant, otherwise one of the main objectives of terrorism has succeeded. Which is easier said than done for people in fear.

I still don't think that the issue of probability is necessarily relevant. If a Muslim became afraid of an attack on his/her Mosque, I wouldn't tell them that they're more likely to be run over or die in a car accident.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



Again Rags, I do not disagree its wrong to label people cowards for being afraid of terrorism, but again the reality is and have spoken on this with victor it is the media and perceptions that are driving this and fueling this fear. It is doubtful people would be so in fear of terrorism and instead more fearsful of rape, if rapes were plastered all over the news everyday. The media and what it shows does have a wany of manipulating how we perceive things.

So I do not think people are cowards for being so, and completely blame the media, even more so when the proability of dying from other daily things is far more probable. Again the one thing that we should be is defiant, otherwise one of the main objectives of terrorism has succeeded. Which is easier said than done for people in fear.

I still don't think that the issue of probability is necessarily relevant. If a Muslim became afraid of an attack on his/her Mosque, I wouldn't tell them that they're more likely to be run over or die in a car accident.

Its relebvant to the point that people have poor perceptions to what is the risk they may face a terrorist attack, where for example you have more chance of being hit by lightening than being a victim of direct terrorism.






Comparing the CDC numbers to terrorism deaths means (keep in mind that – from here to the end of the piece – we are consistently and substantially understating the risk of other causes of death as compared to terrorism, because we are comparing deaths from various causes within the United States against deaths from terrorism worldwide):

– You are [url=https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596339 divided by 17 &tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596339 divided by 17 &cp=4&gs_id=1ri&xhr=t&q=596,339+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=596,339+divided+by+17+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421]35,079[/url] times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are [url=https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=11&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=596%2C339 divided by 17 &tok=duUe66lgoeLquEDcDRFVGQ&pq=596%2C339 divided by 17&cp=7&gs_id=1z0&xhr=t&q=575,313+divided+by+17&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=575,313+divided+by+17&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.cGE&fp=4fb34227f337626b&biw=933&bih=421]33,842[/url] times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
The annual number of deaths in the U.S. due to avoidable medical errors is as high as 100,000. Indeed, one of the world’s leading medical journals – Lancet – reported in 2011:

A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.

That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.

And a new study published in the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year.
But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism. The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism. Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack. As CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria wrote last year:

“Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.) “

President Obama agreed.
According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is even more likely to kill you than a car crash. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda. The number of deaths by suicide has also surpassed car crashes, and many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy. Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year (and more American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist. The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism. The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack. The agency in charge of workplace safety – the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration – reports that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 within the U.S. homeland. In other words, you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism. The CDC notes that 3,177 people died of “nutritional deficiencies” in 2011, which means you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American than be killed by terrorism.
Scientific American notes:

You might have toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by the microscopic parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which the CDC estimates has infected about 22.5 percent of Americans older than 12 years old

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist. There were at least 155 Americans killed by police officers in the United States in 2011. That means that you were more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist. The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism. And see this and this. The Jewish Daily Forward noted last year that – even including the people killed in the Boston bombing – you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And see these statistics from CNN.

Reason notes:

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.

Scientific American reported in 2011:

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark Stewart, a civil engineer and authority on risk assessment at University of Newcastle in Australia … contended, “a great deal of money appears to have been misspent and would have been far more productive—saved far more lives—if it had been expended in other ways.”
Mueller and Stewart noted that, in general, government regulators around the world view fatality risks—say, from nuclear power, industrial toxins or commercial aviation—above one person per million per year as “acceptable.” Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million).
The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.
Defenders of U.S. counterterrorism efforts might argue that they have kept casualties low by thwarting attacks. But invvestigations by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies suggest that 9/11 may have been an outlier—an aberration—rather than a harbinger of future attacks. Muslim terrorists are for the most part “short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning” and small in number, Mueller and Stewart stated. Although still potentially dangerous, terrorists hardly represent an “existential” threat on a par with those posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
In fact, Mueller and Stewart suggested in Homeland Security Affairs, U.S. counterterrorism procedures may indirectly imperil more lives than they preserve: “Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.”
The funds that the U.S. spends on counterterrorism should perhaps be diverted to other more significant perils, such as industrial accidents (one in 53,000), violent crime (one in 22,000), automobile accidents (one in 8,000) and cancer (one in 540). “Overall,” Mueller and Stewart wrote, “vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.” In an e-mail to me, Mueller elaborated:
“The key question, never asked of course, is what would the likelihood be if the added security measures had not been put in place? And, if the chances without the security measures might have been, say, one in 2.5 million per year, were the trillions of dollars in investment (including overseas policing which may have played a major role) worth that gain in security—to move from being unbelievably safe to being unbelievably unbelievably safe? Given that al Qaeda and al Qaeda types have managed to kill some 200 to 400 people throughout the entire world each year outside of war zones since 9/11—including in areas that are far less secure than the U.S.—there is no reason to anticipate that the measures have deterred, foiled or protected against massive casualties in the United States. If the domestic (we leave out overseas) enhanced security measures put into place after 9/11 have saved 100 lives per year in the United States, they would have done so at a cost of $1 billion per saved life. That same money, if invested in a measure that saves lives at a cost of $1 million each—like passive restraints for buses and trucks—would have saved 1,000 times more lives.”
Mueller and Stewart’s analysis is conservative, because it excludes the most lethal and expensive U.S. responses to 9/11. Al Qaeda’s attacks also provoked the U.S. into invading and occupying two countries, at an estimated cost of several trillion dollars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans so far—more than twice as many as were killed on September 11, 2001—as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
***
In 2007 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people are more likely to be killed by lightning than terrorism. “You can’t sit there and worry about everything,” Bloomberg exclaimed. “Get a life. Actually, according to Mueller and Stewart, Americans’ annual risk of dying from lightning, at one in seven million is only half the risk from terrorism.

Indeed, the Senior Research Scientist for the Space Science Institute (Alan W. Harris) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid (and see this). Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death. Indeed, our spending on anti-terrorism measures is way out of whack … especially because most of the money has been wasted. And see this article, and this 3-minute video by professor Mueller: Indeed, mission creep in the name of countering terrorism actually makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Note: The U.S. is supporting the most extreme and violent types of Muslims. Indeed, the U.S. has waived the prohibitions of arming terrorist groups in order to topple the Syrian government … even though the head of the Syrian rebels has called for Al Qaeda to carry out new attacks on America. Indeed – as counter-intuitive as it may sound- stupid government policy may be more dangerous than terrorism.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818



Now I am sure the above will be a tad different if you live say in Syria, Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria etc

Anybody who changes their lifestyle because of fear of a terrorist attack is behaving cowardly, as a coward is controlled by fear.

However -- seeing as most terrorism victims are Muslim, they have more of an excuse than anyone else does.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who changes their lifestyle because of fear of a terrorist attack is behaving cowardly, as a coward is controlled by fear.

However -- seeing as most terrorism victims are Muslim, they have more of an excuse than anyone else does.

Are you calling Eddie a coward because she fears spiders?
I am sure if a brood of spiders invaded her house she would change her lifestyle and move out in an instance.
So to call anyone a coward, just because they fall prey to fear is wrong.
Some countries face an unprecedented amount of terrorism like Israel and they do get on with their lives but many still also fear, where things have had to change for them. You would also certainly change certain aspects that were common sense to do, like be more mindful of your surroundings, spot and report unusual things. If that meant you were in fear of an unattended package, does that make you a coward for getting up and leaving?
No, that is called common sense to move awway.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who changes their lifestyle because of fear of a terrorist attack is behaving cowardly, as a coward is controlled by fear.

However -- seeing as most terrorism victims are Muslim, they have more of an excuse than anyone else does.

Are you calling Eddie a coward because she fears spiders?
I am sure if a brood of spiders invaded her house she would change her lifestyle and move out in an instance.
So to call anyone a coward, just because they fall prey to fear is wrong.
Some countries face an unprecedented amount of terrorism like Israel and they do get on with their lives but many still also fear, where things have had to change for them. You would also certainly change certain aspects that were common sense to do, like be more mindful of your surroundings, spot and report unusual things. If that meant you were in fear of an unattended package, does that make you a coward for getting up and leaving?
No, that is called common sense to move awway.

Not what I meant -- phobias aren't cowardice, neither is taking a reasonable precaution. But you and I both know it's more sensible to fear being struck by lightning than it is to change any aspect of your life because of a terrorist attack.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Are you calling Eddie a coward because she fears spiders?
I am sure if a brood of spiders invaded her house she would change her lifestyle and move out in an instance.
So to call anyone a coward, just because they fall prey to fear is wrong.
Some countries face an unprecedented amount of terrorism like Israel and they do get on with their lives but many still also fear, where things have had to change for them. You would also certainly change certain aspects that were common sense to do, like be more mindful of your surroundings, spot and report unusual things. If that meant you were in fear of an unattended package, does that make you a coward for getting up and leaving?
No, that is called common sense to move awway.

Not what I meant -- phobias aren't cowardice, neither is taking a reasonable precaution. But you and I both know it's more sensible to fear being struck by lightning than it is to change any aspect of your life because of a terrorist attack.

People can have phobias of death you know.
I know its more probable to be struck by lightening and the best way, is to teach that it is, and not label people cowards, as they are going to be less likely to listen or believe you. As stated it is the perception of the media that drives fear. If everyday you rapes by whites males, then it is obvious a fear of young white males would develope. So you help change perceptions, but it is difficult when there is daily terrorism happenning around the world and it tends to be very much islamic extremism. Not sure how you then not show that in the media

Well it's definietly terrorism, as per the FBI definition.

The only reason why you can't label it white terrorism is becuase he seems to be a loner. Why not "male terrorism"?

Such labels are unnecessary and detract from the crime and the motivation: anti-Muslim hate.

Raggamuffin wrote:The word "terrorism" has a very loose meaning these days. An attack of this kind could be revenge without a plan to change anything politically. That could also apply to the murder of Lee Rigby, and the San Bernardino shootings.

I'd be interested to know if the lefties think that any Muslim who is now afraid of such attacks is a "coward".

Feeling fear is not cowardice. Fear is necessary for survival.

What can be cowardice is how that fear manifests itself into thought, speech and action.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Indeed Rags

That business about calling people "cowards" of "chicken" for being afraid of terrorist attacks was really out of order. I bet those who said it wouldn't say it about Muslims, or anyone who wasn't white.

When fear manifests itself in the form of a hate crime, then that's cowardice.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who changes their lifestyle because of fear of a terrorist attack is behaving cowardly, as a coward is controlled by fear.

However -- seeing as most terrorism victims are Muslim, they have more of an excuse than anyone else does.

Seriously - can you be any more ridiculous and prejudiced against anyone who isn't a Muslim?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That business about calling people "cowards" of "chicken" for being afraid of terrorist attacks was really out of order. I bet those who said it wouldn't say it about Muslims, or anyone who wasn't white.

When fear manifests itself in the form of a hate crime, then that's cowardice.

I hope you're including the hate crimes carried out by some Muslims.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

When fear manifests itself in the form of a hate crime, then that's cowardice.

I hope you're including the hate crimes carried out by some Muslims.

Did I make a distinction between religion?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Well it's definietly terrorism, as per the FBI definition.

The only reason why you can't label it white terrorism is becuase he seems to be a loner. Why not "male terrorism"?

Such labels are unnecessary and detract from the crime and the motivation: anti-Muslim hate.

Not its not definately terrorism, as what is the political motivation here and what aims?
Its possible its just a hate crime.
Its possible its terrorism, but there is a clear distinction between the both

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Anybody who changes their lifestyle because of fear of a terrorist attack is behaving cowardly, as a coward is controlled by fear.

However -- seeing as most terrorism victims are Muslim, they have more of an excuse than anyone else does.

Seriously - can you be any more ridiculous and prejudiced against anyone who isn't a Muslim?

Are you saying only Muslims commit terrorist acts?

dont see what the problem is ...


after all...its only a few......

or


well, you know hes not really a white supremacist or terrorist or...
hes a "loner"


and all the other excuses the left uses to gain wriggle room for the "others"

back at ya....

oh and the above isnt a representation of my personal view on this

its just given me a big rock to throw

I cannot advocate 'firebombing mosques' but it warms the cockles of my heart to hear about it.

More will go up in flames I reckon as dissent towards Muslims from the world grows.

Stormee wrote:I cannot advocate 'firebombing mosques' but it warms the cockles of my heart to hear about it.

More will go up in flames I reckon as dissent towards Muslims from the world grows.

and there was me thinking being able to inhabit two mutually exclusive POV's at the same time was purely a "lefty" trait

I mean...just read that stormee and tell me there isnt a kind of warped "duality" in your words????

Maybe I should have inserted the word, LEGALLY

ah now That of course is different

cant say I agree with you but I have to say I'm not surprised (that this is happening) either

Lord Foul wrote:ah now That of course is different

cant say I agree with you but I have to say I'm not surprised (that this is happening) either

He probably got rejected by a Muslim woman.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:ah now That of course is different

cant say I agree with you but I have to say I'm not surprised (that this is happening) either

He probably got rejected by a Muslim woman.

well with a fizzog like that I wouldnt be surprised
but then his response was out of proportion
over here they simply make sure their person of interest is in no positon to reject them

rotherham
bradford
birmingham
etc
etc
etc

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:ah now That of course is different

cant say I agree with you but I have to say I'm not surprised (that this is happening) either

He probably got rejected by a Muslim woman.

well with a fizzog like that I wouldnt be surprised
but then his response was out of proportion
over here they simply make sure their person of interest is in no positon to reject them

rotherham
bradford
birmingham
etc
etc
etc

Sick, are you implying his position is justified by the grooming issue?

what you been sniffing???

where did I imply anything of the sort

(genuinely trying to wrap my head round that??????????????????????????????????)
his actions cannot be justified on ANY grounds

i was pointing out that over here......

and the absurdity of your "excuse"

you really dont do sarcasm well do you.....if it isnt wrapped round a brick...it just passes right through you...

Stormee wrote:I cannot advocate 'firebombing mosques' but it warms the cockles of my heart to hear about it.

More will go up in flames I reckon as dissent towards Muslims from the world grows.

Irony
that the western victims or Terrorism are such because of dissent towards the Western powers interference.

Dissent toward Muslims doesn't really make sense as we hare not beholden to them to dissent from their choices (unless like Zach, you believe everyone is born Muslim )  the right word is 'Persecute' since Muslims are the weaker and in position on minority to the cowards that express their fear through terrorizing peaceful communities of citizens (exact same description as ISIS)

Dissent towards the west makes sense because the West is the greatest political economic and military power on Earth. others are beholden to our power.