Terrorism hits London again (is it Russia?)

[Joe Fan]

London was quickly followed by a close call in Belgium where "a man" was arrested after trying to drive his car into a crowd. His car was loaded with "liquid gas, a semi-automatic rifle and knives."
The "man" is "French-Tunisian"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4342446/Man-arrested-trying-drive-car-crowd.html

 

[Clean]

Maybe some of you thought the thread title mentioning "The Russians!" was perhaps a little too cynical?

Behold British leftist heroine Louise Mensch

Funny isn't it. The Russians, who used to be "The Left", are apparently considered to be anti-Left, at least by the lady you quote.

 

[Statalyzer]

They are describing the terrorist as "Asian."
Which has a different common meaning than the US.
In the UK, Asian is the PC way of saying Muslim or Middle Eastern.

It's a weird term in either case to use "Asian" as a racial term for specific group of about 10 countries in East Asia, or for Arabs. So, Chinese, Malay, Indians, Iranians, Turks, Saudis, Israelis, and many Russians are all one racial group?

 

[Brad Austin]

It's a weird term in either case to use "Asian" as a racial term for specific group of about 10 countries in East Asia, or for Arabs.

It's correct in the strictest interpretation if referring to geography of person's birth continent...which we all know wasn't applicable in this context.

Imagine reading an AAS headline "North American rapes local nurse".

 

[Joe Fan]

It's a weird term in either case to use "Asian" as a racial term for specific group of about 10 countries in East Asia, or for Arabs. So, Chinese, Malay, Indians, Iranians, Turks, Saudis, Israelis, and many Russians are all one racial group?

I argue with my Turkish friend about this all the time
I tell her she is Asian
She says she is def not Asian

And when you tell a Russian this, they get insulted
They consider themselves European
I always ask, "So now Europe touches the Pacific Ocean?"
They dont like that either

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Clean]

One reason the crowd of victims was so diverse is because that is a main tourist area. The U.S. victims were touring London for their 25th anniversary.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[horninchicago]

Yep, that'll stop 'em.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is another one from same guy

 

[Mr. Deez]

Katie Hopkins is a bit of a blowhard, but her rant is understandable. The bending ourselves into pretzels not to offend Muslims and to label terror at attacks as "acts of extremism" is getting old, as are the self-reflecting and sanctimonious platitudes about unity and symbolic acts of phony defiance (that terror supporters undoubtedly laugh at and view as signs of victory for them). I understand why some do this, and not everyone who does has bad intentions, but when these kinds of displays are followed by inaction or half-assed action, it breeds cynicism. Furthermore, when they're coupled with far more unmitigated and borderline reckless condemnations (presumptions of hate and racism, etc.) of patriotic individuals, it promotes tribalism in white people.

If you want white nationalism and ultimately neo-Nazism to flourish, behave how the Left does after terror attacks. It's very dangerous, and it won't happen out of hatred for other groups but out of self-preservation. Personally, I deplore it. I think people like Richard Spencer and the like are terrible people, but the Left does more to promote them than anyone else.

And it's kinda funny, because the Left would scoff at this point, but it's the exact same point they make about Muslims. If we're anything but supportive of Muslims, the moderates will run to the arms of the radicals. I think there's truth to it, but it's way, way overblown.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Another incident in London. Ugh. Link.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

And it's kinda funny, because the Left would scoff at this point, but it's the exact same point they make about Muslims.

The difference is that the Left sees Muslims as third-world disadvantaged people with different lives than them. They believe they can't truly understand them and need to empathize. If you're a white man, they "know" exactly why you do everything. They don't feel the need to try and accommodate or understand or empathize, because they already know you're the problem.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The difference is that the Left sees Muslims as third-world disadvantaged people with different lives than them. They believe they can't truly understand them and need to empathize. If you're a white man, they "know" exactly why you do everything. They don't feel the need to try and accommodate or understand or empathize, because they already know you're the problem.

I think that's true of the better meaning leftists. For the most hardcore leftists, the difference is what world view gets promoted. They mollycoddle Muslims because Islam is anti-Western, and they hate everything about the West. Christian or Jewish whites are usually pro-Western.

 

[Statalyzer]

The weird thing is Islam represents everything the US left hates about the religious right, magnified tenfold. If it weren't for the terrorists, liberals would hate Islam.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The weird thing is Islam represents everything the US left hates about the religious right, magnified tenfold. If it weren't for the terrorists, liberals would hate Islam.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, writ large.