London Terror Attack

[Ibanez]

I like cheese. Sometimes with crackers.

In the 1980's Ritz and Kraft got together and put a mind control potion in their products that make you crave cheese and crackers. You don't like cheese and crackers.

[Grizalltheway]

I like cheese. Sometimes with crackers.

In the 1980's Ritz and Kraft got together and put a mind control potion in their products that make you crave cheese and crackers. You don't like cheese and crackers.

Ah FUCK! Please don't tell me the same thing happened with beer.

[Ibanez]

In the 1980's Ritz and Kraft got together and put a mind control potion in their products that make you crave cheese and crackers. You don't like cheese and crackers.

Ah FUCK! Please don't tell me the same thing happened with beer.

I have a few YouTube videos by Alex Jones and Co. that you blow your mind!!!!!

[ASUG8]

I like cheese. Sometimes with crackers.

That's racist.

[93henfan]

I like cheese. Sometimes with crackers.

That's racist.

Shutcho mouf, cracka!

[Ibanez]

That's racist.

Shutcho mouf, cracka!

WWOD?

[HI54UNI]

[HI54UNI]

[HI54UNI]

[BDKJMU]

Why is this thread about the 9/11 conspiracy labeled "London Terror Attack"?

[HI54UNI]

Because a dumbass conspiracy theorist hijacked the thread.

[BDKJMU]

Well, back to the topic at hand.

This the kind of shit that happens when you disarm your citizens.

[kalm]

Should this be called a terrorist attack?

The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... m-blowback" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

Should this be called a terrorist attack?

The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... m-blowback" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bullshit. Eric Rudolph was a terrorist. Ted Kaczynski was a terrorist. I don't believe they were Muslim.

[CAA Flagship]

Should this be called a terrorist attack?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... m-blowback" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bullshit. Eric Rudolph was a terrorist. Ted Kaczynski was a terrorist. I don't believe they were Muslim.

Yeah. Terror has no ties to race. Muslims are like the Domincans in baseball. They are the ones making a lot of noise in the game these days.