Europe Becoming Accustomed to Extremists?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

According to this former Islamic extremist, Europe is becoming accustomed to extremists. Sure looks like they are now paying the price. And I remember Obama wanted us to be more like Europe and London has a Muslim mayor. I sure hope we are not going down that path of becoming "accustomed."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/06/former-islamic-extremist-london-terror-attack-radical-islamic-extremism

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

Just for clarification, the Mayor of Pairs is Anne Hidalgo who is an atheist.  The mayor of London is a Muslim by the name of Kahn.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hidalgo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London

[homersapien 11,366]

You "remember Obama wanting us to be more like Europe"?  

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Just for clarification, the Mayor of Pairs is Anne Hidalgo who is an atheist.  The mayor of London is a Muslim by the name of Kahn.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hidalgo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London

Clarification of what?  

What's your point?

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Clarification of what?  

What's your point?

The OP said Paris has a Muslim mayor, I was clarifying that London has the Muslim mayor not Paris.  And you admonish people for their lack of reading comprehension.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Just for clarification, the Mayor of Pairs is Anne Hidalgo who is an atheist.  The mayor of London is a Muslim by the name of Kahn.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hidalgo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London

You are right. My mistake, I corrected it. Thanks.

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The OP said Paris has a Muslim mayor, I was clarifying that London has the Muslim mayor not Paris.  And you admonish people for their lack of reading comprehension.

Oops, I missed that.  Good job.

(But that's not a problem with comprehension, that's just an ordinary mistake.)

[quietfan 233]

Whether the Mayors of London or Paris are Muslim or atheist is totally irrelevant.  Neither supports violence or terrorism, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims and atheists--like the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other major religions--reject violence, condemn terrorism, and abhor the slaughter of innocents!

I am much more likely to be killed by an American with a gun than by Islamic terrorists!  But that doesn't cause me to tremble in fear or hide in my home, nor does the much smaller threat of being killed in a terrorist attack.  When it comes to 'becoming accustomed' to violence, we've already become accustomed to incidents like these: (All of which occurred since the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert on May 22.)

Shootings in the US since May 22:

Incident Date   State     # Killed    # Injured   

June 6, 2017	Utah			3	2	View Incident View Source
June 5, 2017	Florida			6	0	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Louisiana			0	4	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Louisiana			3	2	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Missouri			2	2	View Incident View Source
June 2, 2017	California			1	3	View Incident View Source
June 2, 2017	Texas			2	3	View Incident View Source
June 1, 2017	Missouri			4	0	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	Alabama			0	12	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	New Jersey			1	5	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	Mississippi			0	5	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	New York			0	4	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	DC			1	7	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	Mississippi			8	1	View Incident View Source
May 26, 2017	Florida			0	4	View Incident View Source

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Unfortunately, according to this England poll, there aren't just the extremists but their sympasizers and the over 2/3 who wouldn't report another suspected Muslim. Just read the first bullet if nothing else.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

[Grumps 3,704]

5 hours ago, quietfan said:

Whether the Mayors of London or Paris are Muslim or atheist is totally irrelevant.  Neither supports violence or terrorism, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims and atheists--like the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other major religions--reject violence, condemn terrorism, and abhor the slaughter of innocents!

I am much more likely to be killed by an American with a gun than by Islamic terrorists!  But that doesn't cause me to tremble in fear or hide in my home, nor does the much smaller threat of being killed in a terrorist attack.  When it comes to 'becoming accustomed' to violence, we've already become accustomed to incidents like these: (All of which occurred since the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert on May 22.)

Shootings in the US since May 22:

Incident Date   State     # Killed    # Injured   

June 6, 2017	Utah			3	2	View Incident View Source
June 5, 2017	Florida			6	0	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Louisiana			0	4	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Louisiana			3	2	View Incident View Source
June 3, 2017	Missouri			2	2	View Incident View Source
June 2, 2017	California			1	3	View Incident View Source
June 2, 2017	Texas			2	3	View Incident View Source
June 1, 2017	Missouri			4	0	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	Alabama			0	12	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	New Jersey			1	5	View Incident View Source
May 28, 2017	Mississippi			0	5	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	New York			0	4	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	DC			1	7	View Incident View Source
May 27, 2017	Mississippi			8	1	View Incident View Source
May 26, 2017	Florida			0	4	View Incident View Source

 

Interesting stats, but it is irrelevant in the sense that the U.S. incidents you mentioned have nothing to do with a religious ideology. Sure, angry U.S. people hurt more people than Muslim extremists. But heart disease kills more people than global warming. Does either comparison really mean anything?

[quietfan 233]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

Interesting stats, but it is irrelevant in the sense that the U.S. incidents you mentioned have nothing to do with a religious ideology. Sure, angry U.S. people hurt more people than Muslim extremists. But heart disease kills more people than global warming. Does either comparison really mean anything?

I understand your opinion/point regarding the relevance of the comparisons. 

My point was that violence because of religious ideology is so rare as to not warrant panic or religious discrimination.  And concerns about 'becoming accustomed' to such  violence seem misplaced, over exaggerated, or even hypocritical given that we Americans take such a nonchalant attitude to the blood baths already taking place in our streets on an almost daily basis

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

10 hours ago, quietfan said:

I understand your opinion/point regarding the relevance of the comparisons. 

My point was that violence because of religious ideology is so rare as to not warrant panic or religious discrimination.  And concerns about 'becoming accustomed' to such  violence seem misplaced, over exaggerated, or even hypocritical given that we Americans take such a nonchalant attitude to the blood baths already taking place in our streets on an almost daily basis

Queitfan, if you put the deaths of individuals in categories and not look at the motivations, I can see your point.  However, the deaths you posted were all random acts of violence, most from work place, domestic or thuggery violence and totally unrelated to one another.

When talking Radical Islamic Terrorism violence, these acts are coordinated by a central entity and are inflicted to make the most out of their acts striking at the heart of the free world to bring their governments to their collective knees (remember Sept 11, 2001).  This has been publically stated by the likes of Al-Queada and ISIS along with a few others.

I am glad you're not "trembling in fear or hide in my home" at these attacks, but the reason for that, IMO, is the world's intelligence agencies are constantly vigilant when it comes to this terrorist threat.  When they do happen and there is whole in the protective net, people can sing "cum ba ya" and recite "Image" and believe in all that's good, but thank God there are people looking out for this type of violence.

By the way, religion is not the issue here.  There have been evil people that want to gain power, land and wealth use religion in order to inspire people to give up their lives for a cause, through out history.  The ones wanting the power are usually charismatic leaders that people gravitate to.  JMO, I could be wrong.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By the way, religion is not the issue here.  There have been evil people that want to gain power, land and wealth use religion in order to inspire people to give up their lives for a cause, through out history.  The ones wanting the power are usually charismatic leaders that people gravitate to.  JMO, I could be wrong.

I have to disagree. Based on everything I have read, the radical Islamist movement (ISSIS, et. al.) is ALL about religion and the destruction of what the believe to be non-believers in Islam.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

I have to disagree. Based on everything I have read, the radical Islamist movement (ISSIS, et. al.) is ALL about religion and the destruction of what the believe to be non-believers in Islam.

I agree with this, it's the people behind the "radical Islamic movement" that are using a misrepresentation of religion to motivate people to give up their lives to enter paradise.  The leaders are a radical sect, most Muslims who follow Islam are peace loving people, those peace loving people need to reign in the radicals, in the mean time the world tries to eliminate the threat.  Christians have done the same thing in the past, remember the Crusades?

A quote from Wikipedia:  Volunteers became Crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the Church. Some were hoping for a mass ascension into heaven at Jerusalem, or God's forgiveness for all their sins. Others participated to satisfy feudal obligations, obtain glory and honour, or seek opportunities for economic and political gain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

If you can separate the motives of the "leaders" from the religion, you will see my point.  You don't have to agree.  It seems the Christian religion has evolved since the Crusades, but we're still refining.

[metafour 4,969]

22 hours ago, quietfan said:

Whether the Mayors of London or Paris are Muslim or atheist is totally irrelevant.  Neither supports violence or terrorism

Sadiq Khan has quite a few interesting connections to groups that supported Hamas and other extremist organizations, on top of Muslim Brotherhood connections which got him elected in the first place.  Whether or not he supports terrorism isn't up to me to decide, but he certainly isn't doing a whole lot to "fight terrorism" in his city.  They've apprehended more people for "hate speech" on Twitter/Facebook following these attacks than they have known radicals who openly walk the streets, because everyone knows that mean words on the internet are more dangerous than people who are just itching to commit murder.

15 years ago this man fought to try to overturn the U.K's ban on known extremist Louis Farrakhan and yet today he's trying to ban Trump from making a state visit.  Talk about double standards.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

4 hours ago, metafour said:

Sadiq Khan has quite a few interesting connections to groups that supported Hamas and other extremist organizations, on top of Muslim Brotherhood connections which got him elected in the first place.  Whether or not he supports terrorism isn't up to me to decide, but he certainly isn't doing a whole lot to "fight terrorism" in his city.  They've apprehended more people for "hate speech" on Twitter/Facebook following these attacks than they have known radicals who openly walk the streets, because everyone knows that mean words on the internet are more dangerous than people who are just itching to commit murder.

15 years ago this man fought to try to overturn the U.K's ban on known extremist Louis Farrakhan and yet today he's trying to ban Trump from making a state visit.  Talk about double standards.

Link on links you claim?

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

21 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Link on links you claim?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-sadiq-khan-farrakhan-0916-chicago-inc-20160915-story.html

Recent article showing that he fought the ban on keeping Farrakhan out of UK. It is hard to reconcile this with him trying to stop Trump from coming to the UK. I am not saying he approves of Farrakhan because he never said that. I have no problem with him not liking Trump but there is a difference between not liking somebody and trying to prevent them from coming into your country which is what he preached with Farrakhan. Apparently he has a double standard.

I picked this article specifically because it is not from a right wing publication.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

3 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-sadiq-khan-farrakhan-0916-chicago-inc-20160915-story.html

Recent article showing that he fought the ban on keeping Farrakhan out of UK. It is hard to reconcile this with him trying to stop Trump from coming to the UK. I am not saying he approves of Farrakhan because he never said that. I have no problem with him not liking Trump but there is a difference between not liking somebody and trying to prevent them from coming into your country which is what he preached with Farrakhan. Apparently he has a double standard.

I picked this article specifically because it is not from a right wing publication.

He was acting has a hired lawyer. He wasn't staking out a political position. I'm sure he wouldn't begrudge Trump hiring a lawyer to fight any ban.