Skip to content


Advanced search
  • Board index ‹ General ‹ Speaker's Corner ‹ Politics and World Events
  • Syndication
  • Change font size
  • FAQ
  • Members
  • Register
  • Login

Attack in London?

Post a reply

Question Which do you wear on your feet: shoes, gloves, scarf:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   
  • Options

Expand view Topic review: Attack in London?

  • Quote firehazard

Re: Attack in London?

Post by firehazard Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:53 am

DzM wrote:Jeez. The tragedies keep hitting London.

Stay strong, friends.


Yes, we are afflicted by dickheads from all directions. Including of course the government dickheads.
[quote="DzM"]Jeez. The tragedies keep hitting London.

Stay strong, friends.[/quote]

Yes, we are afflicted by dickheads from all directions. Including of course the government dickheads.
  • Quote DzM

Re: Attack in London?

Post by DzM Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:38 pm

And Paris again? Please, crazy dickheads, stop for a while.
And Paris again? Please, crazy dickheads, stop for a while.
  • Quote DzM

Re: Attack in London?

Post by DzM Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:21 pm

Jeez. The tragedies keep hitting London.

Stay strong, friends.
Jeez. The tragedies keep hitting London.

Stay strong, friends.
  • Quote DzM

Re: Attack in London?

Post by DzM Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:24 pm

Mike from Boston wrote:Looks like another attack in Stockholm. Plus one of the casualties in London died, 31 year old Andreea Cristea, who had been rescued from the Thames.

Yep. As has been noted earlier - a pox on the fuckers that thought of this.
[quote="Mike from Boston"]Looks like another attack in Stockholm. Plus one of the casualties in London died, 31 year old Andreea Cristea, who had been rescued from the Thames.[/quote]
Yep. As has been noted earlier - a pox on the fuckers that thought of this.
  • Quote Mike from Boston

Re: Attack in London?

Post by Mike from Boston Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:28 pm

Looks like another attack in Stockholm. Plus one of the casualties in London died, 31 year old Andreea Cristea, who had been rescued from the Thames.
Looks like another attack in Stockholm. Plus one of the casualties in London died, 31 year old Andreea Cristea, who had been rescued from the Thames.
  • Quote old barney greyheron

Re: Attack in London?

Post by old barney greyheron Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:05 am

soulfinger wrote:
NewJerseyRich wrote:
Admittedly I don't know much about the British right. I'd say how many right wing attacks vs. Muslim extremist attacks were there in London over the last decade? For that matter how many Left wing attacks? Are there neighborhoods of right wingers where you can't travel through? If you think the right is a larger problem then Muslim Extremism I can't help you.


You could have stopped after much.


Soulfinger you barstid, you just made me spit tea all over the place! :D
[quote="soulfinger"][quote="NewJerseyRich"]

Admittedly I don't know much about the British right. I'd say how many right wing attacks vs. Muslim extremist attacks were there in London over the last decade? For that matter how many Left wing attacks? Are there neighborhoods of right wingers where you can't travel through? If you think the right is a larger problem then Muslim Extremism I can't help you.[/quote]

You could have stopped after much.[/quote]

Soulfinger you barstid, you just made me spit tea all over the place! :D
  • Quote NewJerseyRich

Re: Attack in London?

Post by NewJerseyRich Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:06 pm

DzM wrote:
NewJerseyRich wrote:Oh the dance the Lib media does to avoid the term "Islamic Extremist"

A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, Reason (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/ ... orist-atta

Select paragraphs (about 50% of the article):
For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."


I went to the link page, read the article but can't seem to filter/recreate the data they claim so I'll hold any opinion until I can. Also I don't think anyone said we fear this over everything else or fear terrorism is more likely then being struck by lightening.
[quote="DzM"][quote="NewJerseyRich"]Oh the dance the Lib media does to avoid the term "Islamic Extremist"[/quote]
A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, [i]Reason[/i] (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta

Select paragraphs (about 50% of the article):
[quote]For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."[/quote][/quote]

I went to the link page, read the article but can't seem to filter/recreate the data they claim so I'll hold any opinion until I can. Also I don't think anyone said we fear this over everything else or fear terrorism is more likely then being struck by lightening.
  • Quote Low D

Re: Attack in London?

Post by Low D Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:57 pm

DzM wrote:A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, Reason (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/ ... orist-atta



Exactly, thanks for sharing. And not to mention that more Americans are likely to be killed by a lack of affordable health care then are ever likely to be killed by terrorism.* For reals. Here's a good article from the liberal fake news folks at "Business Insider":
http://www.businessinsider.com/death-ri ... nts-2017-1

*Again, this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of terrorism, which i am against. I am just ALSO against the more common unnecessary deaths due to a lack of affordable health care.

Mike from Boston wrote:I think everyone has made their points. And I do agree with Low D, God help him if the Vancouver Canucks lose a big game!!



My fear level is down somewhat since we debunked from Chinatown (next to the stadium) the other year. Although we had a great view from our old 10th floor rooftop of the 2011 riot when they lost to a certain eastern seaboard team (at least until the acrid smell of burning cars drove us indoors).
[quote="DzM"]
A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, [i]Reason[/i] (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta

[/quote]

Exactly, thanks for sharing. And not to mention that more Americans are likely to be killed by a lack of affordable health care then are ever likely to be killed by terrorism.* For reals. Here's a good article from the liberal fake news folks at "Business Insider":
http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

[i]*Again, this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of terrorism, which i am against. I am just ALSO against the more common unnecessary deaths due to a lack of affordable health care.
[/i]
[quote="Mike from Boston"]I think everyone has made their points. And I do agree with Low D, God help him if the Vancouver Canucks lose a big game!!

[/quote]

My fear level is down somewhat since we debunked from Chinatown (next to the stadium) the other year. Although we had a great view from our old 10th floor rooftop of the 2011 riot when they lost to a certain eastern seaboard team (at least until the acrid smell of burning cars drove us indoors).
  • Quote DzM

Re: Attack in London?

Post by DzM Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:09 pm

NewJerseyRich wrote:Oh the dance the Lib media does to avoid the term "Islamic Extremist"

A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, Reason (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/ ... orist-atta

Select paragraphs (about 50% of the article):
For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

Some non-Muslims did get intense coverage. Wade Michael Page, who killed six people in an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, generated 92 articles, or 3.8 percent of the dataset. Dylann Roof's murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, inspired 179 articles, or 7.4 percent. Robert Dear's slaying of three people at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs led to 204 articles, or 8.5 percent. Still, "Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks."

No doubt this greater media focus on Muslim perpetrators has badly skewed the public's—and Trump's—impressions about the sources of terrorist attacks in the U.S. On the other hand, the Georgia State researchers do not acknowledge an important difference between the purveyors of jihadist ideology and domestic racists like Page and Roof. ISIS and Al Qaeda are adroit publicists who have leveraged their relatively few attacks into successfully instilling a sense of terror into many Americans.

The Georgia State researchers conclude: "By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent. Based on these findings, it is no wonder that Americans are so fearful of radical Islamic terrorism. Reality shows, however, that these fears are misplaced."

Such fears are indeed misplaced. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114. Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. This new study is one small step in that direction.
[quote="NewJerseyRich"]Oh the dance the Lib media does to avoid the term "Islamic Extremist"[/quote]
A reasonably timely piece from another Liberal Media Outlet, [i]Reason[/i] (a well known Libertarian publication) about whether Muslims commit more acts of terrorism:

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta

Select paragraphs (about 50% of the article):
[quote]For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

Some non-Muslims did get intense coverage. Wade Michael Page, who killed six people in an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, generated 92 articles, or 3.8 percent of the dataset. Dylann Roof's murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, inspired 179 articles, or 7.4 percent. Robert Dear's slaying of three people at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs led to 204 articles, or 8.5 percent. Still, "Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks."

No doubt this greater media focus on Muslim perpetrators has badly skewed the public's—and Trump's—impressions about the sources of terrorist attacks in the U.S. On the other hand, the Georgia State researchers do not acknowledge an important difference between the purveyors of jihadist ideology and domestic racists like Page and Roof. ISIS and Al Qaeda are adroit publicists who have leveraged their relatively few attacks into successfully instilling a sense of terror into many Americans.

The Georgia State researchers conclude: "By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent. Based on these findings, it is no wonder that Americans are so fearful of radical Islamic terrorism. Reality shows, however, that these fears are misplaced."

Such fears are indeed misplaced. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114. Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. This new study is one small step in that direction.[/quote]
  • Quote NJR

Re: Attack in London?

Post by NJR Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:24 pm

When of I hear terror attacks I no longer become sad immediately. My response is now anger. White hot anger. There should be a retaliation. The West has intelligence on ISIS training camps, movements, etc. Snice they claim responsibility a stike should be imenent. Swift and overwhelming.

.. and Mike and Low D both need to worry about the NY Rangers!
When of I hear terror attacks I no longer become sad immediately. My response is now anger. White hot anger. There should be a retaliation. The West has intelligence on ISIS training camps, movements, etc. Snice they claim responsibility a stike should be imenent. Swift and overwhelming.

.. and Mike and Low D both need to worry about the NY Rangers!
  • Quote Mike from Boston

Re: Attack in London?

Post by Mike from Boston Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:07 pm

I think everyone has made their points. And I do agree with Low D, God help him if the Vancouver Canucks lose a big game!!

Thanks for replying firehazard. This attack struck me more, besides having cousins in London, I spent my honeymoon at the Marriott City Hall and walked over the Westminster Bridge numerous times. Just read yesterday that a couple spending their 25 th Anniversary was struck on the bridge, killing the husband. No winners.
I think everyone has made their points. And I do agree with Low D, God help him if the Vancouver Canucks lose a big game!!

Thanks for replying firehazard. This attack struck me more, besides having cousins in London, I spent my honeymoon at the Marriott City Hall and walked over the Westminster Bridge numerous times. Just read yesterday that a couple spending their 25 th Anniversary was struck on the bridge, killing the husband. No winners.
  • Quote firehazard

Re: Attack in London?

Post by firehazard Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:21 am

Mike from Boston wrote:...
Hey firehazard, how is commenting on the most pressing problem in the world today "pathetic and deeply offensive"...


Mike, what really happened is that you started a thread in reaction to the attack in London, simply expressing your concern and asking people to stay safe. Which is perfectly reasonable. At the time, what was known about the events was largely speculation. NJR then jumps in to post a gratuitous comment about his latest obsession with what he calls the "liberal media". That seems to me to be offensively disrespectful to those who have actually been affected, and is just the kind of behaviour that one expects from trolls.

And there's really no point trying to engage in discussion with trolls.

But just this once, then I'm out of here:

NewJerseyRich wrote:...The Mayor of London claimed "These attacks are part of urban living" ...


So now you're just picking up a retweet posted by Donald Trump Jr of a quote taken out of context from an article published six months ago (so not a response by Mayor Sadiq Khan to this attack). If Trump Jr, or you, had bothered to read the article you might understand that it actually says something rather different. Well done.

Oh, and:

NewJerseyRich wrote:...In the case of Islamic Terrorists I'd say we're looking at 900 years of a problem...


So going back to the Second Crusade then? What a fine moment that was for Western civilisation.
[quote="Mike from Boston"]...
Hey firehazard, how is commenting on the most pressing problem in the world today "pathetic and deeply offensive"...[/quote]

Mike, what really happened is that you started a thread in reaction to the attack in London, simply expressing your concern and asking people to stay safe. Which is perfectly reasonable. At the time, what was known about the events was largely speculation. NJR then jumps in to post a gratuitous comment about his latest obsession with what he calls the "liberal media". That seems to me to be offensively disrespectful to those who have actually been affected, and is just the kind of behaviour that one expects from trolls.

And there's really no point trying to engage in discussion with trolls.

But just this once, then I'm out of here:

[quote="NewJerseyRich"]...The Mayor of London claimed "These attacks are part of urban living" ...[/quote]

So now you're just picking up a retweet posted by Donald Trump Jr of a quote taken out of context from an article published six months ago (so not a response by Mayor Sadiq Khan to this attack). If Trump Jr, or you, had bothered to read the article you might understand that it actually says something rather different. Well done.

Oh, and:

[quote="NewJerseyRich"]...In the case of Islamic Terrorists I'd say we're looking at 900 years of a problem...[/quote]

So going back to the Second Crusade then? What a fine moment that was for Western civilisation.
  • Quote NewJerseyRich

Re: Attack in London?

Post by NewJerseyRich Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:31 am

Lowest D wrote:
NewJerseyRich wrote:I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.


Well, the problem we're having, especially since WWII, is that is not the case.


In the case of Islamic Terrorists I'd say we're looking at 900 years of a problem. Not just the last half of the 20th Century.
[quote="Lowest D"][quote="NewJerseyRich"]I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.[/quote]

Well, the problem we're having, especially since WWII, is that is not the case.[/quote]

In the case of Islamic Terrorists I'd say we're looking at 900 years of a problem. Not just the last half of the 20th Century.
  • Quote Lowest D

Re: Attack in London?

Post by Lowest D Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:19 am

NewJerseyRich wrote:I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.


Well, the problem we're having, especially since WWII, is that is not the case.
[quote="NewJerseyRich"]I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.[/quote]

Well, the problem we're having, especially since WWII, is that is not the case.
  • Quote NewJerseyRich

Re: Attack in London?

Post by NewJerseyRich Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:00 am

I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.
I can see how things could be misconstrued. No one is for bombing civilians.

Top

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB
Content © copyright the original authors unless otherwise indicated