[NettoSuperstar!]

LoL...ok mate ignore the relative stability of a lot of muslim countries, proportion, proximity, and various social and economic factors involved...I'll ignore the ridiculous bollocks at the end of your post

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/HaitiShelterProject.html

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/DoctorsMedicalCamps.html

http://www.muslimsforhaiti.org/AllPi...FromHaiti.html

For you to SEE

[InOne]

America has had a few cases like this, when asked why one guy commited a mass slaying he said "Because I wanted to be remembered"

[Tom4784]

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

I'm not denying it's existence I just wanna know what it is so I can continue the debate. Here's my original statement that you branded nonsense in the last post. At least summarise your previous arguments so you can defend your recent remarks that I'm deluded and don't know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not denying it's existence I just wanna know what it is so I can continue the debate. Here's my original statement that you branded nonsense in the last post. At least summarise your previous arguments so you can defend your recent remarks that I'm deluded and don't know what I'm talking about.

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

I didn't misunderstand you - they were all linked! You did rather arrogantly try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this - has no mind of their own and has just been influenced by the media. Yes dear. You, of course, are far too well informed and in the know to have fallen for it like the rest of us gullible idiots!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

As I said before - you have far too high an opinion of yourself - and the arguments you present simply do not back up that inflated opinion. You are totally transparent - in your pathetic attempts to constantly undermine my self-confidence and create self-doubt by constant put-down remarks such as embarrassing and misunderstand - when such remarks are clearly more appropriate and applicable to you. I don't misunderstand my dear - you just speak a load of incoherrent twaddle!

What points exactly do you think you made so eloquently! That everyone barr you is taken in by media hype (particularly us gullible, over-protective parents) - bully for you! Well you fit into your own little demographic - of those that like blowing their own trumpet -and spout nought but utter bull****e!

I argued my point in the deleted post - not that there was much to argue - as I said before - ask James to send it to you, if it is so important to you - me thinks you are getting a bit hysterical about this!

Your opinions mean little to me as your arguments have no substance, just opinionated drivel. You harp on about facts - when you produce none yourself - just repeatedly tell us how well informed and well qualified on the subject you are! Really!

Definition of facts:

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact - your suposition that I read the Daily Mail is not!

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case." - You have failed to prove that you are an expert on the subject!

10/10 for effort - but, in the end, your comments are simply opinion - nothing more.

We are all aware of media hype - do you really think that knowledge is exclusive to you, with all your qualifications on the subject? But believe it or not - some of us are able to form our own opinions regardless!

As for your immature 3 choices - I wonder - which have I made!

I don't have an inflated opinion of myself it's just I know more about the subject then you and it offends me when you disregard any points I made to just call me arrogant and transparent, how about stick to the points I made instead of getting so personal by insulting me constantly. If you're not gonna bother debating this properly do not reply to me because I'm sick of your dirty tactics, you do nothing but call me a tw*t, arrogant, sexist, transparent yet you've made no valid point in this topic for a day at the least. All you've done is been completely insulting and immature.

You're saying I'm the one throwing out the insults constantly? Look at your posts! You've done nothing but insult me constantly. It's tiresome really.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten what I wrote in brackets when it came to my points about parents, you should read my posts before you throw out the insults. Parents ARE more likely to be swayed by the media I've said why in my previous post so I'm not gonna repeat it, just read it. I'd say my points are well presented, If you think it's incoherent then it's your problem because it's written very clearly.

I'm starting to think you've not really read my posts as I said I don't know everything about media but I don't take anything it presents at face value. I'm not saying everyone is an idiot as I'm not perfect myself but as with the part about the parents you've CONVENIENTLY forgot that point.

At the end of the day my posts have been more informative then yours for a while. You never address my points only try to insult me, I was very kind in my last post considering, throughout this topic the worst I've called you was a sheep while you've attacked me, my education and everything I've tried to put points across but you've only been concerned with attacking me. Which makes your point about me being hysterical hilarious considering you've constantly been attacking both me and the exclamation mark button.

I've never stated any of my opinion as fact, I've simply stated what I know so you can forget about trying to put words in my mouth. Finally, I never tried to make out that I'm the sole person who is 'immune' to the media, I've just been saying what I was taught for 3 years. Now are you gonna insult me again or are we going to to debate this? I'm tired of the arguing so don't bother replying to me if you're just gonna insult me again.

If you want to debate this properly, here's my two main posts with the important points highlighted.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The only reason why it seems Muslims are behind every attack is because the media aren't giving much focus to many other attacks by non-Muslims as it doesn't fit into their image of terrorism that they want to portray. The face of Terrorism used to be the IRA and then in America in the 90's it was white supremacists. Nowadays the posterchild for Terrorism is Islam, I think it was last year when a white supremacist suicide bomber bombed a street in America but it got nearly no press coverage since it didn't fit in with the current image of terrorism. The only reason this attack's recieved so much attention is because people probably thought it was a Muslim Extremist behind it at first.

The media plays most people like fools, they'll focus on terrifying the public into buying Newspapers or watching the news to get the next piece of the story. Look at Swine Flu and Bird Flu, we were all meant to be dead by now The media relies on narrative and worst possible scenarios to keep the public interested and most people fall hook line and sinker for it.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

By the way - do you have some figures - from a respected reliable source - than confirm what you say that most terrorist attacks are not carried out by Muslims? Without such figures - your remarks are simply opinion - like the rest of us - and do not justify your arrogant, pompus comments. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't - but the fact is that most/or all of the recent attacks that affect us - have been! Or is that just hype too?

Define "recent" and define "terrorism".

Since the late 60's the greater number of terrorist attacks in or on the UK has been as a result of Irish Nationalism. In the 1970's the Army Council of the Provisional IRA decided to bring the war against the British Government to the UK mainland and the number of terrorist attacks on mainland UK since that date committed by Irish nationalists far excedes the number of Muslim terrorist attacks, also bear in mind the that operations were conducted still in Northern Ireland and the Republic during those times. There was a lot of sectarian violence, a form of terrorism. Northern Ireland being part of the UK still has the occassional little burst of it. But the total number of terrorist incidents from the unrest over there is phenomonal if you include punishment beatings, sectarian violence, riotings etc.

Bear in mind the list on the following link only gives attacks and aborted attacks that were publicised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Great_Britain

Separatism be it Basque, Palestinian or any other has also lead the field from the 1960's through till the 2000's in Europe and the Middle East.

The rise in Islamic terrorism can be seen from the early 1980's internationally.

Due primarily to the situation in and around the Middle East. In the early 80's Israel invaded Southern lebanon to attempt to prevent the PLO from launching attacks against her people. Syria also sent troops into Lebanon. The PLO concentrated most of its troops in and around Beirut, Violence then erupted between Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. The US led a multinational peace keeping force into Lebanon whose mission was to evacuate the PLO to Syria, and then they withdrew, The PLO who had established refugee camps around Beirut started filtering their fighters back into them.

On the evening of September 16, 1982, Christian Phalangists swept into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside Beirut and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Eyewitness reports and subsequent Israeli inquiries established that Israeli commanders permitted the Christian militia to enter the camps. Sharon himself later testified that he had approved of the men going into the camps in order to detain PLO guerrillas. But he also insisted that he had no advance knowledge that a massacre of civilians would take place. Regardless of intent, the massacre caused a significant shift in the balance of power in Lebanon, one with important implications for the emergence of Hezbollah.

The US led another peacekeeping force back into Lebanon, however the local Shi'ites simply looked upon it as another occupying force. The Israelis had been able to use artillery on civilian villages and town with impunity during the last peacekeeping mission.

Complicating matters, the newly installed Khomeini regime in Iran had sent 1,000 Revolutionary Guards, the regime's elite fighting force, to southern Lebanon at the conclusion of the Israeli siege. The Revolutionary Guards provided military training for the existing Shiite militia and helped form Hezbollah, a new, more radical Islamic faction.

Then we had the bombings of the US embassy(Islamic Jihad) and the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 producing over 300 fatalities. Whilst not forcing the US to leave, the American led peacekeeping force withdrew in 1984. The terrorists believed this was due to them. This was a key factor in future Muslim Fundamentalist belief.

Obviously since the early 80's a lot of misguided young men have been led astray in the cause of Islam. There are hundreds if not thousands of incidents since the 1980's involving muslims.

There are numerous terrorist incidents in Latin America, Africa and Asia every year but most fail to gain any mention in the UK media, mainly because it doesnt directly impact on us as a nation.



Try this link for terrorism worldwide, again you have to bear in mind lots of attacks were thwarted in the early stages were not included on the various lists, eg August 1988 Gibraltar, an IRA ASU were terminated in their planned attack on a military parade, during their preparation phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rist_incidents

[Sticks]

Side point, as this happened in Texas, you do not call anyone born south of the Mason - Dixon line a Yankee - It's a civil war thing and they get really upset if you get this wrong. I have been told this by a Texan. It is like calling a Geordie a Maccum and visa versa but worse.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Sticks

.... a Yankee

But it is a Cockney 'Yank' and not their sense of 'Yankee'.

Besides.. they came up with 'Canuck' and yeah I think its probably what it sounds like.. Can... *uck.

[Jords]

Shocking! :/

[NettoSuperstar!]

^You've been given figures from the FBI and Europol and various other factual based sources and still you dont want to believe...that is why your a bigot

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

^You've been given figures from the FBI and Europol and various other factual based sources and still you dont want to believe...that is why your a bigot

And so are you!

"A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class."

The term is equally applicable to you!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

And so are you!

Do you know what bigot even means?

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Do you know what bigot even means?

More than you I suspect!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

More than you I suspect!

In fairness she got her information from a more valid source then anyone in this thread and has made the best points. She's put across a good case and bigoted to deny that (if we're gonna use that word in a pedantic sense).

Wombai, you never did manage to argue against my post....

[James]

Stop using insults in this thread.

Edit. Posts deleted.

[arista]

Originally Posted by James

Stop using insults in this thread.

Edit. Posts deleted.

Please
James will Lock Thread this soon
and I would prefer some debate without Insults.
It can be done.

[InOne]

This thread has nothing to do with terrorism, he was a mentally ill man who flew a plane into a building. To some degree it could be classed as that, but not the same kind as you lot were on about.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by InOne

This thread has nothing to do with terrorism, he was a mentally ill man who flew a plane into a building. To some degree it could be classed as that, but not the same kind as you lot were on about.

True but the original ideas that it could have been terrorism and the methods used link in to my point about media hysteria.

[Vicky.]

Dezzy, she didnt call you a sexist *******

She called you a patronizing t*** because you said that she was just influenced by the media...


And can this bickering stop please?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Dezzy, she didnt call you a sexist *******

She called you a patronizing t*** because you said that she was just influenced by the media...


And can this bickering stop please?

oh okay I apologise for mixing it up but still, she did accuse me of sexism I remember because I did a post saying that it's a card she relies on too often.

All I want is for her to try to answer my point since she's attacked me for more then I her in this thread.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

oh okay I apologise for mixing it up but still, she did accuse me of sexism I remember because I did a post saying that it's a card she relies on too often.

All I want is for her to try to answer my point since she's attacked me for more then I her in this thread.

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Ask James to put the post back then - I made my reply - people would have read it and part of it was in another's post - so stop trying to imply I didn't and therefore couldn't respond to your post!

You havent responded to my post asking you to define "recent" and "terrorism" could you also define what you mean by "recent attacks that affect us ".

You see those are very subjective terms. the pilot flying into the tax office could be classed as a domestic terrorist attack, (whether he was or wasnt part of a larger group). He intended to produce terror in those he considered his enemy.