Truck slams into crowd at Bastille Day Celebrations- Terror attack likely

I heard the other day that half of all reports regarding possible radicalisation is coming from school teachers as part of their new reporting requirements.

I work with schools and had no idea. I also don’t know if they are best to do that sort of thing but they are the most likely to spend large amounts of time with young people. Just an FYI

Ha damn. My mate works out north’ish Melb as a teacher. From what he tells me at times, I suspect most of them don’t have the attention span to be radicalized.

Why isn't there perfectly normal middle ground in all this? Why are these the only two options?
  1. Ban all Muslims / You are racist.
  2. Don’t support banning Muslims / You are a sympathiser.

And worst of all we have this attitude these days where it’s almost shamed upon to change your opinion based on new knowledge or something learnt that changes it.

So much labelling these days. It used to be a trend for the opposite. I’m not that old but left / right wasn’t something that was discussed at all but now it’s leftist this and right wing.

Why does it have to be so?

A: It’s a lot easier to hate someone if they are clearly labelled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESg

I can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause

I'm sure you can't.

Where would you like me to start?

From the top?

For starters there is 1.67 billion Muslims in the world not 1.2, she says that intelligence agencies estimate that between 15- 25% of them are radicalised. Our own intelligence agency disagrees, they consider the risk number to be at .006627% why such the gross discrepancy? It’s simple, intelligence agencies do not consider fundamentalist Muslims as radicalised, here figures are based on what ours (and the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Interpol) consider fundamentalists not radicalised until they identify alegences to a radical subsection of fundamentalism, like it or not, these are organisations first and formost terrorist organisations, malita if you will. These are quite literally groups set at distroying western civilisation as she puts it.

Fundamentalist Islam is more strict on people being true disciples of the prophet and living by that doctrine. But they are NOT considered to be radicalised.

It’s a pefect example of glossed over hyperbole and ignorance of audience used to create fear. She paints a picture of 300 million terrorist risks when a) by her maths it would be 400mil Lol, and b) the real figure is around 96,000 which is certainly still a figure to be diligent about, no doubt there.

How do I know this?

I’ve recently been deployed to work with humanitarian entrant visa holders and had to undergo extreme levels of screening, training, and briefing by government agencies.

Maybe our guys are wrong? But I will say I have come out of the experience having a new level of feelings of security, safety and confidence that our country is very safe, and on the unbelievably small chance a racial was to find their way to our shores that they would be dealt with as soon as they so much as stole a pack of chewing gum, if they even got in at all.

If fact, they say the level of hysteria being conjured by bullshit is making their job harder than it needs to be, because people are flagging utter nonsense actually ties up resources.

I prefer this response to your first post.

I agree that the proportion of Muslims who are likely to carry out violent attacks is far fewer than she states, but (and this differs by country) there is a not insignificant proportion of Muslims who are terrorist sympathisers and hold views which we would consider to be incompatible with a democratic western society. Whether that concerns you is up to you, but surveys clearly show that fundamentalism is a concern of many Muslims within their own communities.

I would encourage you to look at this survey, conducted in 2010. I found the figures on Muslims who believe suicide bombing to be justifiable in certain cases to be most alarming, amongst other eyebrow raising revelations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The other point I would make is that her central claim about the peaceful majority not mattering in the sense that they are unable to prevent the devastating actions of a violent majority remains true. If we assume a percentage of Muslims to be either fundamentalist or radical to the point of violence, do we really want to expose ourselves to that threat by importing them en masse?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESg

I can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause

I'm sure you can't.

Where would you like me to start?

From the top?

For starters there is 1.67 billion Muslims in the world not 1.2, she says that intelligence agencies estimate that between 15- 25% of them are radicalised. Our own intelligence agency disagrees, they consider the risk number to be at .006627% why such the gross discrepancy? It’s simple, intelligence agencies do not consider fundamentalist Muslims as radicalised, here figures are based on what ours (and the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Interpol) consider fundamentalists not radicalised until they identify alegences to a radical subsection of fundamentalism, like it or not, these are organisations first and formost terrorist organisations, malita if you will. These are quite literally groups set at distroying western civilisation as she puts it.

Fundamentalist Islam is more strict on people being true disciples of the prophet and living by that doctrine. But they are NOT considered to be radicalised.

It’s a pefect example of glossed over hyperbole and ignorance of audience used to create fear. She paints a picture of 300 million terrorist risks when a) by her maths it would be 400mil Lol, and b) the real figure is around 96,000 which is certainly still a figure to be diligent about, no doubt there.

How do I know this?

I’ve recently been deployed to work with humanitarian entrant visa holders and had to undergo extreme levels of screening, training, and briefing by government agencies.

Maybe our guys are wrong? But I will say I have come out of the experience having a new level of feelings of security, safety and confidence that our country is very safe, and on the unbelievably small chance a racial was to find their way to our shores that they would be dealt with as soon as they so much as stole a pack of chewing gum, if they even got in at all.

If fact, they say the level of hysteria being conjured by bullshit is making their job harder than it needs to be, because people are flagging utter nonsense actually ties up resources.

I prefer this response to your first post.

I agree that the proportion of Muslims who are likely to carry out violent attacks is far fewer than she states, but (and this differs by country) there is a not insignificant proportion of Muslims who are terrorist sympathisers and hold views which we would consider to be incompatible with a democratic western society. Whether that concerns you is up to you, but surveys clearly show that fundamentalism is a concern of many Muslims within their own communities.

I would encourage you to look at this survey, conducted in 2010. I found the figures on Muslims who believe suicide bombing to be justifiable in certain cases to be most alarming, amongst other eyebrow raising revelations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The other point I would make is that her central claim about the peaceful majority not mattering in the sense that they are unable to prevent the devastating actions of a violent majority remains true. If we assume a percentage of Muslims to be either fundamentalist or radical to the point of violence, do we really want to expose ourselves to that threat by importing them en masse?

I would encourage you to research how many Trump voters support bombing Middle Eastern towns and accepting civilian deaths as ‘collateral damage’.

Malay buddhistz flying the flag.

Pro-ISIS Buddhists. What the hell?

2% in Israel are thinking it over.

NU - a bit of ISIS pushback in the muslim world thats been happening for a whiles now, not that you’d hear much about it:

From Indonesia, a Muslim Challenge to the Ideology of the Islamic State
By JOE COCHRANENOV. 26, 2015

Muslims praying during Ramadan at a mosque in Jakarta in Indonesia. The country has the world’s largest Muslim population. Credit Nyimas Laula/Reuters
JAKARTA, Indonesia — The scene is horrifyingly familiar. Islamic State soldiers march a line of prisoners to a riverbank, shoot them one by one and dump their bodies over a blood-soaked dock into the water.

But instead of the celebratory music and words of praise expected in a jihadi video, the soundtrack features the former Indonesian president, Abdurrahman Wahid, singing a Javanese mystical poem: “Many who memorize the Quran and Hadith love to condemn others as infidels while ignoring their own infidelity to God, their hearts and minds still mired in filth.”

That powerful scene is one of many in a 90-minute film that amounts to a relentless, religious repudiation of the Islamic State and the opening salvo in a global campaign by the world’s largest Muslim group to challenge its ideology head-on.

The challenge, perhaps surprisingly, comes from Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population but which lies thousands of miles away from the Islamic State’s base in the Middle East.

“The spread of a shallow understanding of Islam renders this situation critical, as highly vocal elements within the Muslim population at large — extremist groups — justify their harsh and often savage behavior by claiming to act in accord with God’s commands, although they are grievously mistaken,” said A. Mustofa Bisri, the spiritual leader of the group, Nahdlatul Ulama, an Indonesian Muslim organization that claims more than 50 million members.

“According to the Sunni view of Islam,” he said, “every aspect and expression of religion should be imbued with love and compassion, and foster the perfection of human nature.”

This message of tolerance is at the heart of the group’s campaign against jihadism, which will be carried out online, and in hotel conference rooms and convention centers from North America to Europe to Asia. The film was released Thursday at the start of a three-day congress by the organization’s youth wing in the Central Java city of Yogyakarta.

In a way, it should not be surprising that this message comes from Indonesia, the home of Islam Nusantara, widely seen as one of the most progressive Islamic movements in the world. The movement — its name is Indonesian for “East Indies Islam” — dates back more than 500 years and promotes a spiritual interpretation of Islam that stresses nonviolence, inclusiveness and acceptance of other religions.

Analysts say the theology developed organically in a place where Hinduism and Buddhism were the primary religions before Islam arrived around the 13th century. Indonesian Islam blended with local religious beliefs and traditions, creating a pluralistic society despite having a Muslim majority.

Indonesia today has more than 190 million Muslims, but also has a secular government and influential Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities.

Such liberalism poses a counterargument to the Islamic State, analysts said.

“We are directly challenging the idea of ISIS, which wants Islam to be uniform, meaning that if there is any other idea of Islam that is not following their ideas, those people are infidels who must be killed,” said Yahya Cholil Staquf, general secretary to the N.U. supreme council. “We will show that is not the case with Islam.”

N.U. has established a nonprofit organization, Bayt ar-Rahmah, in Winston-Salem, N.C., which will be the hub for international activities including conferences and seminars to promote Indonesia’s tradition of nonviolent, pluralistic Islam, Mr. Yahya said.

N.U. is also working with the University of Vienna in Austria, which collects and analyzes ISIS propaganda, to prepare responses to those messages, which N.U. will disseminate online and at conferences.

A prevention center based in Indonesia, expected to be operational by the end of the year, will train male and female Arabic-speaking students to engage with jihadist ideology and messaging under the guidance of N.U. theologians who are consulting Western academia.

The film, “Rahmat Islam Nusantara” (The Divine Grace of East Indies Islam), has been translated into English and Arabic for global distribution, including online. The film explores Islam’s arrival and evolution in Indonesia, and includes interviews with Indonesian Islamic scholars.

In scene after scene, they challenge and denounce the Islamic State’s interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith, the book of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, as factually wrong and perverse.

Today’s Headlines: Asia Edition
Get news and analysis from Asia and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the Asian morning.

The Islamic State’s theology, rooted in the fundamentalist Wahhabi movement, takes its cues from medieval Islamic jurisprudence, where slavery and execution of prisoners was accepted. The filmmakers accept the legitimacy of those positions for the time but argue that Islamic law needs to be updated to 21st-century norms.

Other sects and Muslim leaders have made this argument before. And non-Arab countries like Indonesia tend to have less influence on the practice of Islam, especially in the Middle East.

“The problem with Middle East Islam is they have what I call religious racism,” said Azyumardi Azra, an Islamic scholar and former rector of the State Islamic University in Jakarta. “They feel that only the Arabs are real Muslims and the others are not.”

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and the main source of financial support for Wahhabism worldwide, has had more success in imposing its interpretation and has even made inroads in Indonesia. Analysts say a steady flow of money from Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, supports an active and growing Wahhabist movement here.

There are also reservations here about the N.U. going global, rather than first tackling violent extremism at home. Indonesia has suffered several deadly terrorist attacks by Islamic militants in recent years that have killed hundreds, including bombings on the resort island of Bali in 2002 and 2005, and at five-star international hotels in Jakarta in 2003 and 2009.

The best known of the Indonesian jihadi groups, Jemaah Islamiyah, a onetime Southeast Asian branch of Al Qaeda, has been crushed, but splinter groups still exist, as well as other militant Muslim groups like the Islamic Defenders Front, which occasionally smash up bars and attack religious minorities and their houses of worship.

Bonar Tigor Naipospos, vice chairman for the executive board of the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace in Jakarta, said N.U.’s campaign applied equally to local radicals.

“They want to show to Indonesian society, ‘Look, we are Islamic and we have universal values, but we also respect local cultures,’” he said. “We are not like Islam in the Middle East.”

Others say the international public discourse has to start somewhere, even if it is thousands of miles away from Syria and Iraq.

Hedieh Mirahmadi, president of the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, an organization based in Washington that works to combat extremism, said that, according to open source data, supporters of the Islamic State were sending an average of 2.8 million messages a day to their followers on Twitter.

“Who’s going to counter that?” she asked.

“It’s what they are doing in Indonesia, it’s what we are doing in the U.S., and in other places,” she said. “You flood the space, and you hope people get the right messages.”

I see ‘Diamond’ Joe Gutnik has gone belly up. If you’re a creditor of Diamond Joe and want to know where your money went, it’s spread evenly across the West Bank in the form of illegal settlements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESg

I can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause

I'm sure you can't.

Where would you like me to start?

From the top?

For starters there is 1.67 billion Muslims in the world not 1.2, she says that intelligence agencies estimate that between 15- 25% of them are radicalised. Our own intelligence agency disagrees, they consider the risk number to be at .006627% why such the gross discrepancy? It’s simple, intelligence agencies do not consider fundamentalist Muslims as radicalised, here figures are based on what ours (and the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Interpol) consider fundamentalists not radicalised until they identify alegences to a radical subsection of fundamentalism, like it or not, these are organisations first and formost terrorist organisations, malita if you will. These are quite literally groups set at distroying western civilisation as she puts it.

Fundamentalist Islam is more strict on people being true disciples of the prophet and living by that doctrine. But they are NOT considered to be radicalised.

It’s a pefect example of glossed over hyperbole and ignorance of audience used to create fear. She paints a picture of 300 million terrorist risks when a) by her maths it would be 400mil Lol, and b) the real figure is around 96,000 which is certainly still a figure to be diligent about, no doubt there.

How do I know this?

I’ve recently been deployed to work with humanitarian entrant visa holders and had to undergo extreme levels of screening, training, and briefing by government agencies.

Maybe our guys are wrong? But I will say I have come out of the experience having a new level of feelings of security, safety and confidence that our country is very safe, and on the unbelievably small chance a racial was to find their way to our shores that they would be dealt with as soon as they so much as stole a pack of chewing gum, if they even got in at all.

If fact, they say the level of hysteria being conjured by bullshit is making their job harder than it needs to be, because people are flagging utter nonsense actually ties up resources.

I prefer this response to your first post.

I agree that the proportion of Muslims who are likely to carry out violent attacks is far fewer than she states, but (and this differs by country) there is a not insignificant proportion of Muslims who are terrorist sympathisers and hold views which we would consider to be incompatible with a democratic western society. Whether that concerns you is up to you, but surveys clearly show that fundamentalism is a concern of many Muslims within their own communities.

I would encourage you to look at this survey, conducted in 2010. I found the figures on Muslims who believe suicide bombing to be justifiable in certain cases to be most alarming, amongst other eyebrow raising revelations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The other point I would make is that her central claim about the peaceful majority not mattering in the sense that they are unable to prevent the devastating actions of a violent majority remains true. If we assume a percentage of Muslims to be either fundamentalist or radical to the point of violence, do we really want to expose ourselves to that threat by importing them en masse?

I would encourage you to research how many Trump voters support bombing Middle Eastern towns and accepting civilian deaths as ‘collateral damage’.

I love it how people point out that Trump and his voters support bombing, blah, blah… Really?
It is as if the other presidential hopefuls or the ones who are currently in office are saint-like and doves of peace.

Are you not aware of how many times the US has bombed the bejeezus out of ME towns and Trump has never even been in office?

Last year, the United States dropped an estimated total of 23,144 bombs in six countries. Of these, 22,110 were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This estimate is based on the fact that the United States has conducted 77 percent of all airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, while there were 28,714 U.S.-led coalition munitions dropped in 2015. This overall estimate is probably slightly low, because it also assumes one bomb dropped in each drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, which is not always the case.

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/6/61/US_Bombings_since_1945.jpg

The US has never and will never be a beacon for world peace.

What did Grenada do? Or not do?

What did Grenada do? Or not do?

The usual change of regime move from the good ol’ boys.

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/6/61/US_Bombings_since_1945.jpg

The US has never and will never be a beacon for world peace.

POST USERNAME COMBO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESg

I can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause

I'm sure you can't.

Where would you like me to start?

From the top?

For starters there is 1.67 billion Muslims in the world not 1.2, she says that intelligence agencies estimate that between 15- 25% of them are radicalised. Our own intelligence agency disagrees, they consider the risk number to be at .006627% why such the gross discrepancy? It’s simple, intelligence agencies do not consider fundamentalist Muslims as radicalised, here figures are based on what ours (and the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Interpol) consider fundamentalists not radicalised until they identify alegences to a radical subsection of fundamentalism, like it or not, these are organisations first and formost terrorist organisations, malita if you will. These are quite literally groups set at distroying western civilisation as she puts it.

Fundamentalist Islam is more strict on people being true disciples of the prophet and living by that doctrine. But they are NOT considered to be radicalised.

It’s a pefect example of glossed over hyperbole and ignorance of audience used to create fear. She paints a picture of 300 million terrorist risks when a) by her maths it would be 400mil Lol, and b) the real figure is around 96,000 which is certainly still a figure to be diligent about, no doubt there.

How do I know this?

I’ve recently been deployed to work with humanitarian entrant visa holders and had to undergo extreme levels of screening, training, and briefing by government agencies.

Maybe our guys are wrong? But I will say I have come out of the experience having a new level of feelings of security, safety and confidence that our country is very safe, and on the unbelievably small chance a racial was to find their way to our shores that they would be dealt with as soon as they so much as stole a pack of chewing gum, if they even got in at all.

If fact, they say the level of hysteria being conjured by bullshit is making their job harder than it needs to be, because people are flagging utter nonsense actually ties up resources.

I prefer this response to your first post.

I agree that the proportion of Muslims who are likely to carry out violent attacks is far fewer than she states, but (and this differs by country) there is a not insignificant proportion of Muslims who are terrorist sympathisers and hold views which we would consider to be incompatible with a democratic western society. Whether that concerns you is up to you, but surveys clearly show that fundamentalism is a concern of many Muslims within their own communities.

I would encourage you to look at this survey, conducted in 2010. I found the figures on Muslims who believe suicide bombing to be justifiable in certain cases to be most alarming, amongst other eyebrow raising revelations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The other point I would make is that her central claim about the peaceful majority not mattering in the sense that they are unable to prevent the devastating actions of a violent majority remains true. If we assume a percentage of Muslims to be either fundamentalist or radical to the point of violence, do we really want to expose ourselves to that threat by importing them en masse?

I would encourage you to research how many Trump voters support bombing Middle Eastern towns and accepting civilian deaths as ‘collateral damage’.

I love it how people point out that Trump and his voters support bombing, blah, blah… Really?
It is as if the other presidential hopefuls or the ones who are currently in office are saint-like and doves of peace.

Are you not aware of how many times the US has bombed the bejeezus out of ME towns and Trump has never even been in office?

Last year, the United States dropped an estimated total of 23,144 bombs in six countries. Of these, 22,110 were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This estimate is based on the fact that the United States has conducted 77 percent of all airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, while there were 28,714 U.S.-led coalition munitions dropped in 2015. This overall estimate is probably slightly low, because it also assumes one bomb dropped in each drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, which is not always the case.

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/6/61/US_Bombings_since_1945.jpg

The US has never and will never be a beacon for world peace.

Yes, I am aware.
Yes, I agree with your last line.

I pointed out ‘Trump supporters’ to make it current.

If you want a glimpse into how people are ■■■■■■■ desperate to be vindicated in their narrative go look at the Twitter hashtag #merrylands on Twitter, sky news went all in early on the terror attack call, hate speak spewed.

Old crazy guy.

If you want a glimpse into how people are ■■■■■■■ desperate to be vindicated in their narrative go look at the Twitter hashtag #merrylands on Twitter, sky news went all in early on the terror attack call, hate speak spewed.

Old crazy guy.

The same station that received death treats last year ? Yeah drawing a long bow and all that

A priest is dead after being taken hostage in a church in northern France by two armed men who had links to the Islamic State (IS) terror group, President Francois Hollande says.
A nun who escaped the attack said the assailants forced the priest to kneel before filming the murder.

Why didn’t you start a new thread IT?