So... a guy got beheaded in front of my office today

[whiteoak]

Julia Gillard?

 

[cancat]

Name a recent left wing terrorist.

Eric McDavid

 

[Pie eyed]

62% a made up on the spot are correct (+/- 5%) though.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

And yet all this boards outspoken lefties quickly leapt to defend Islam and avert the subject topic toward U.s imperialism or the failings of Christianity
Again, I think you will find it was the lefties who introduced the subject of Iraq/Palestine.

Seems to me only a "deceitful ideologue or fool" would complain after they had been the ones to introduce the link in the first place.

Confused post is confused.

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about what folk have posted here on silly-billy big footy - I'm talking about the manner in which three conservative columnists in the print media immediately used this issue to push their political barrow. Who said what or who made what link to Islam, Christianity, or whatever on BF is irrelevant.

 

[blackcat]

This is precisely why I view people like Bolt and Devine as types of extremists. They are no different to militant Trots. They view the world through the prism of their political view. What occurs is only good and bad depending on how successfully they can or cannot reassert their political position. They are tragics. It amazes me they are printed in daily, popular newspapers. It is shameful that they attempt to gain political points from these tragedies, yet would be horrified if anyone was so reductive as to return the favour and take their beliefs to task through the prism of a Breivik or alike. Which of course no one would be so stupid to do. That would be a perverse logic limited to them.

i would evoke moral equivalence. i dont see much difference wrt the foreignpolicy led adventurism of US and her allies, and the terrorism from the muslim call themselves jihadis. two sides of the same coin. just one is state endorsed. the other not so. will find a partisan opinion in the US, or Tehran and whatever the capital of Yemen is called. And Islamabad. what is wrong for them, in my opinion, what is wrong, in unversal judgement, its wrong for the coalition too, inspite of State qualifier.

 

[fishardansin]

Eric McDavid

Why is environmentalism equated with leftism? In fact, in their truest form they aren't very compatible ideologies.

Anyhow I feel terrible for this poor man's family and saddened that he had to go through an end to his life like that.

However, if one was to choose a type of terrorist act, then this is it. They attacked someone who at some point had been a combatant in the conflict and didn't set off a bomb to sporadically kill anyone who happened to be in the area, including some who support your cause.

For those who question it, this is definitely a terrorist act IMHO. I define terror as an action designed to put fear into opposition in a military conflict, in such a way that the action taken wont directly lead to any military advantage but will put terror into the targeted population so that they will change their behavior, or feel the terror that you do.

 

[LouisCK]

If this is a terror attack, Brevik's action was an act of terrorism. I'm fine with that, I just hate how the media plastered the word terrorist all over the front pages after the death of one soldier, yet were reluctant to even discuss whether Brevik was a terrorist or Christian fundie at all.

Also, I saw in the early articles that the second perpetrator was speaking to a lady and said something about the victim along the lines of "he said he killed muslims, so we killed him".

Is it possible there was a previous encounter between the victim and the attackers? The attackers apparently spent a lot of time just down the road from the army base, often banging on about islam this or that. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy regularly gave them a mouthful on his morning jogs and might have been specifically targetted based on that.

 

[blackcat]

Why is environmentalism equated with leftism? In fact, in their truest form they aren't very compatible ideologies.

Anyhow I feel terrible for this poor man's family and saddened that he had to go through an end to his life like that.

However, if one was to choose a type of terrorist act, then this is it. They attacked someone who at some point had been a combatant in the conflict and didn't set off a bomb to sporadically kill anyone who happened to be in the area, including some who support your cause.

For those who question it, this is definitely a terrorist act IMHO. I define terror as an action designed to put fear into opposition in a military conflict, in such a way that the action taken wont directly lead to any military advantage but will put terror into the targeted population so that they will change their behavior, or feel the terror that you do.

geoff cousins. jwh mate
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/the-corporate-assassin-20120326-1vtwg.html

The corporate assassin

Date
March 26, 2012​

• Comments

  8​

  ​
• Read later​

Malcolm Turnbull calls him a "rich bully". But millionaire businessman Geoff Cousins is an eco-warrior with a difference. Greg Bearup reports


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/the-corporate-assassin-20120326-1vtwg.html#ixzz2UmToLNev

 

[Power Raid]

left is right
right is right


surely we all want the same thing, being education, jobs and wealth for as many as possible and most importantly a happy society.


only a nutmeg would suggest only one side has evil.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

If this is a terror attack, Brevik's action was an act of terrorism. I'm fine with that, I just hate how the media plastered the word terrorist all over the front pages after the death of one soldier, yet were reluctant to even discuss whether Brevik was a terrorist or Christian fundie at all.

Also, I saw in the early articles that the second perpetrator was speaking to a lady and said something about the victim along the lines of "he said he killed muslims, so we killed him".

Is it possible there was a previous encounter between the victim and the attackers? The attackers apparently spent a lot of time just down the road from the army base, often banging on about islam this or that. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy regularly gave them a mouthful on his morning jogs and might have been specifically targetted based on that.

"A terrorist is a terrorist unless they're my terrorist."

I find it ironic when you complain about brevik not being linked to Christianity when he never claimed to do it in the name of Christianity.

He did it for his right wing political ideals, he's just like Timothy Mcveigh.

If you wanted to bring to light the hypocrisy of right wing columnist's
bolt especially you should have highlighted how bolt not only downplayed but seemed to somewhat justify and make excuse's for the guys actions.

You see it could be that Brevik is a terrorist that Andrew bolt support's (obviously he can't just come out and say as most people disagree with him and he'd loose his job)

The question is why are you acting just like Andrew bolt?
Quick to down play the attack itself
Quick to look for other reasons for the attack despite whats painfully obvious
Quick to point to other terror attacks that didn't share the same goals as this one
Then finally seek to justify it, and drum on and on about trying to convince everyone.

I guess what I'm asking is, is this your terrorist?

 

[cancat]

From Brevik's trial

Breivik: I think 22 July managed to provoke a witch hunt of moderate cultural conservatives and nationalists. You can see that too. Just look at [Prime Minister] Stoltenberg’s New Year speech in which he basically called everyone who was critical of immigration extremists. So it has turned out exactly how I was hoping it would. So I, I, there are many nationalists who have written letters to me and who [ask] what you are doing, we will not gain any more support from this, our cause is weakened, but they have completely misunderstood the goals. The goal is not that we should get an immediate boost, just after there will be a crisis, but in the very, very long term, it will be an advantage because you contribute to increasing censorship in Europe, which again in the very long term will be an advantage because you contribute to radicalization of cultural conservatives and nationalists, and contribute to increased polarization, so the nationalists who believe that I did this for a short term boost, they have misunderstood completely.​

​

<snip>​

​

Breivik: With more radicalization, more will make a choice. Thus, the more people who lose hope of peaceful struggle, that is, democracy, the more people choose to become revolutionaries.​

 

[LouisCK]

"A terrorist is a terrorist unless they're my terrorist."

I find it ironic when you complain about brevik not being linked to Christianity when he never claimed to do it in the name of Christianity.

He did it for his right wing political ideals, he's just like Timothy Mcveigh.

Wow, you didn't do much reearch on Brevik (can't blame you, the Christianity stuff was kept out of hte media a fair bit). he essentially dubbed himself a modern Knights Templar, and his manifesto was plastered with bible quotes and crucifixes all over it.

If you wanted to bring to light the hypocrisy of right wing columnist's
bolt especially you should have highlighted how bolt not only downplayed but seemed to somewhat justify and make excuse's for the guys actions.

You see it could be that Brevik is a terrorist that Andrew bolt support's (obviously he can't just come out and say as most people disagree with him and he'd loose his job)

The question is why are you acting just like Andrew bolt?
Quick to down play the attack itself
Quick to look for other reasons for the attack despite whats painfully obvious
Quick to point to other terror attacks that didn't share the same goals as this one
Then finally seek to justify it, and drum on and on about trying to convince everyone.

I guess what I'm asking is, is this your terrorist?

I'm not downplaying the attack, or trying to justify it. Pretty sure I made that clear early on in this thread that I think its a horrible crime.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Eisenhower speaks of the wars between 1860-1960 and where the american arms industry was at start of all that (no arms industry) compared to the end (3 and a half million employees). Every american town in some way has seen economic prosperity as result of the huge arms industry. That industry has massive influence and what he calls misplaced power. That arms industry must be carefully monitored so it doesn't try and keep itself relevant. Only alert and knowledgeable citizens can do that.

And my point to your question is, some people don't want peace.

Or put another way, they can't survive peace , because where do they get their billions from then.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this whole issue is how the perpetrators are primarily Sunni muslims. I can't recall an attack by Shia muslims against the West (outside of Hesbollah vs Israel, and even then its mostly defensive action), yet our leaders and media are big supporters of hardline Sunni muslim states, and demonise the largely impoverished Shia.

Iran, Syria, Hesbollah etc. are, in reality, the ones actually taking the fight to the Sunni extremists who attack Western civilians. So why aren't our leaders able to do the same, or at least, leave the Shia alone to defend the lives of Western civilians?

If this is true, well you learn something every day. So how do you tell which is which and who wants to kill you.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

This situation isn't that religious either.

Its firstly economic: tonnes of bored young men looking for meaning in life.

Secondly its collateral damage from a war. We kill millions and millions of innocent civilians in muslim countries for two decades, whilst the average muslim can't strike back militarily.... and this happens. Its unfortunate, but lets not forget muslims didn't invent suicide bombs (that was the hindu's) and they certainly aren't as good at terrorism as the IRA (who are catholics) or even as downright scary as those Japanese communist terrorists (they were.... well yeah jap commies) who shot up Tel Aviv.

The murder of Osama Bin Laden was more illegal and more heinous than the murder of this Lee rigby bloke imo.

Its more illegal because it breaches international law and another nations sovereignty. Don't think anyone could disagree with that.

It's more heinous because an unarmed senior citizen was executed in front of his family in the middle of the night.

Getting hit by a car and stabbed to death is really bad. But not as uncommon or heinous as being nailed the way Osama was.

Could have fooled me first you pretend it's **** all to do with Islam

Then you claim it's just a bit of collateral damage.

then you claimed being run down and hacked to death and bleeding out in the street is less of a crime then the leader of a terrorist group being shot in the head at his home.

There's probably more but I CBF going through this entire thread.

As for brevik I'll start looking into it, admittedly I took him at his word where he claims he's an anti immigration nationalist who has a gripe with Left wing pollies.

 

[LouisCK]

If this is true, well you learn something every day. So how do you tell which is which and who wants to kill you.

Shia muslims are mostly those of a Persian background, but not entirely. Easiest way to tell is just look at who is most persecuted by the big oil kingdoms and the west (and the full on sunni extremists).

Hazara are the Asian-looking Shia living in Sunni controlled Afghanistan (persecuted by the Taliban)

Bahrain has a Shia majority but a ruling class of Sunni - Saudi Arabia crushed their uprising with tanks. Yanks didn't say shit because their biggest naval fleet in the ME is based in Bahrain.

Hesbollah are Shia - get attacked by Israel pretty regularly. Lebanon is much harder to generalise about because its so diverse, but the Hezzies have done a good job of representing a gorup of people who had no prior representation in Lebanese politics. They have the numbers on the ground to really take over hte country, but aren't going to do it as they don't want too much bloodshed in Lebanon. they are helping Assad in Syria too, because he allows the Persians to smuggle weapons to Hesbollah through Syria.

Syria again, hard to generalise, has substantial Sunni and Shia populations. But the Shia are on side with Al Assad, who is some other religion altogether from my understanding. The 'rebels' in Syria are mostly hardcore Sunni types.

Iraq, Shia south, Kurdish north with a gooey Sunni centre. Dangerous as hell since the yanks left the Sunni in charge. Shia initially supported the Americans as they wer esick of the hardcore sunni blowing up schools and markets, then the yanks realised it was easier to back the Sunni against the Shia.

In any case, the Shia represent the poorer muslim underclass in the ME. They have neither the finances or the inclination to bring the fight to the 'West', because their biggest enemy is the Sunni muslims who want to wipe them out completely.

Yet, according to the media, the Shia dominated areas are the ones we shouldn't be on side with. Boggles the mind if you ask me. Their only real crime is being born in areas with heaps of oil.

 

[LouisCK]

Could have fooled me first you pretend it's **** all to do with Islam

Then you claim it's just a bit of collateral damage.

then you claimed being run down and hacked to death and bleeding out in the street is less of a crime then the leader of a terrorist group being shot in the head at his home.

There's probably more but I CBF going through this entire thread.

As for brevik I'll start looking into it, admittedly I took him at his word where he claims he's an anti immigration nationalist who has a gripe with Left wing pollies.

Don't take my more controversial posts as the only thing I've stated. Its obvious this is a horrible crime and completely unacceptable. Its just that it doesn't occur in isolation because of some 'crazy religion'. It happens for a variety of reasons, most of all is ego.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Don't take my more controversial posts as the only thing I've stated. Its obvious this is a horrible crime and completely unacceptable. Its just that it doesn't occur in isolation because of some 'crazy religion'. It happens for a variety of reasons, most of all is ego.

you haven't taken a course in journalism have you? Because you sound more and more bolt like with every post.


As for your new comment it would have legs Except for one thing it doesn't occur in isolation at all it's one of a multitude of terrorist attacks revenge killings and hate crimes all committed in the name of Islam.

No one disputes that is a distorted interpretation of Islam (well except for blokes like brevik and Andrew bolt) but the root cause the over arching cause is Islam. It transcends nations, boarders economic classes and races.

Someone brought up the treatment of aborigines, can't be disputed as a nation in the past we've treated indigenous people like shit (and the reservation stuff going on today is unacceptable also) but how many have gone on killing sprees?

None that i can think of because no ones going around saying lets blow shit up in the name of the Koori nation! It just doesn't happen.

Now obviously disaffected youth will be drawn to radicalisation more then any other but that still doesn't negate that the radicalised Islamic teachings aren't the root cause.

Take white supremacists groups in the US usually disaffected poor white from areas in which they are minority's or close to being minority's. no disputes that race hate and White Supremacist teaching's are the problem and that tackling that issue head on has lead to the down fall of white supremacist movements (along with laws punishing it)

Why because white supremacy is the root cause of the problem, not the fact that people are poor and feel marginalised this case is no different fundamentalist Islam is the problem and it needs to be addressed straight on.

 

[cancat]

However, if one was to choose a type of terrorist act, then this is it. They attacked someone who at some point had been a combatant in the conflict and didn't set off a bomb to sporadically kill anyone who happened to be in the area, including some who support your cause.

For those who question it, this is definitely a terrorist act IMHO. I define terror as an action designed to put fear into opposition in a military conflict, in such a way that the action taken wont directly lead to any military advantage but will put terror into the targeted population so that they will change their behavior, or feel the terror that you do.

People would have been shocked but I doubt he created terror in the population. He did however create a backlash against Muslims. He could have done everyone a favour and set himself on fire.

Michael Adebolajo had violent tendencies before he became a radicalised Muslim. He didn't just kill Lee Rigby, he butchered him up, suggesting some form of psychopathy. He also attacked police officers with meat cleavers, who presumably had not been 'combatants in the conflict'. In the end it doesn't matter if he was terrorist, not the even the 'right kind' of terrorist. Lock the scumbag up for the rest of his days.

 

[LouisCK]

you haven't taken a course in journalism have you? Because you sound more and more bolt like with every post.


As for your new comment it would have legs Except for one thing it doesn't occur in isolation at all it's one of a multitude of terrorist attacks revenge killings and hate crimes all committed in the name of Islam.

No one disputes that is a distorted interpretation of Islam (well except for blokes like brevik and Andrew bolt) but the root cause the over arching cause is Islam. It transcends nations, boarders economic classes and races.

Someone brought up the treatment of aborigines, can't be disputed as a nation in the past we've treated indigenous people like shit (and the reservation stuff going on today is unacceptable also) but how many have gone on killing sprees?

None that i can think of because no ones going around saying lets blow shit up in the name of the Koori nation! It just doesn't happen.

Now obviously disaffected youth will be drawn to radicalisation more then any other but that still doesn't negate that the radicalised Islamic teachings aren't the root cause.

Take white supremacists groups in the US usually disaffected poor white from areas in which they are minority's or close to being minority's. no disputes that race hate and White Supremacist teaching's are the problem and that tackling that issue head on has lead to the down fall of white supremacist movements (along with laws punishing it)

Why because white supremacy is the root cause of the problem, not the fact that people are poor and feel marginalised this case is no different fundamentalist Islam is the problem and it needs to be addressed straight on.

If Islam was the root cause, why is it a new phenomenon, if Islam has been around for over thousand years?

 

[LouisCK]

Also white supremacy isn't caused by white supremacy. Its again, lack of education.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

If Islam was the root cause, why is it a new phenomenon, if Islam has been around for over thousand years?

It's not new at all.

 

[whiteoak]

RickJames being compared to Andrew Bolt.

That's not something I was expecting when I woke up this morning.

 

[skilts]

Crazy shit.

Both lads sounded British born. They just murdered this dude, and then waited around (talking to people) like nothing had happened, until the cops rocked up and shot them.

Just wondering Mal, seeing you were a witness to these events, have you been interviewed by police?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Also white supremacy isn't caused by white supremacy. Its again, lack of education.

No white supremacist movements again go back hundreds (probably thousands of years, just like Islam) there are already established, the cause is already present.

doctrines and books that contain these views and people that hold that recruit people to the cause it's the books, writings and those that preach them that cause them to spread. This is where we fight them stop others from being indoctrinated best we can.

Your right in that Education is key to stopping white supremacy challenging there doctrines and there books, banning writings and recruitment policy's getting rid of segregated school's and arresting those groups that preach hate wherever possible.

Whilst I agree if western nations adopted this approach with Islam long term this would hinder Islamic terror in western countries In the short term it would lead to an increase in violence, a destabilisation of global politics.

An example would be flat out banning wahhabist schools, texts and imams from referencing said texts as well as banning mosques, political groups and businesses from being involved or taking donations from such groups.