Bounce

Well that's what the discussion is about. Should attacks like London Bridge be reported as hate crimes or terrorist attacks. Recent example of terrorist attack with a knife which didn't make the headlines https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-49652977 I'm glad you agree.

I suppose so but not everyone who came here was a refugee. Many South Asian Muslims had grandparents in the British army or the NHS. Many others came to work in industry because Britain invited them to do so from former colonies. This demographic makes up the vast majority of Muslims in the UK. Britain came to pre partition India first under the guise of business then took over the country, before leaving it in pieces a few hundred years later. South Asians have never invaded the UK, and probably contributed the most out of any minority ethnic group here.

Clearly you haven't understood the thread. I suggest you read the original post again. Smaller scale religiously motivated attacks. Fewer casualties with weapons such as knives, bats, acid etc. It seems that if the perpetrator is Muslim you find it making headlines as a "terror attack". If the victim is Muslim its either reported as a hate crime only or if it is reported as a terror attack it doesn't make headlines and there is much less hysteria surrounding the incident. Conspiracy is a term used to dismiss evidence. Often when someone has no argument they will use conspiracy theory as a rebuttal. However I'm not prepared to get into a new discussion about 7/7 with you.

They are indeed but then shouldn't small scale attacks like London Bridge also be called hate crimes? The point here is that certain religiously motivated hate crimes are reported as "terror attacks" and others are not. This horrific case in an example of that. 7/7 discussions from 10 years ago are irrelevant to the topic.

Well I think the point here is that some smaller scale attacks are referred to as "terrorism" while others are not. The Dresden case is a poignant example. There are many cases in the UK as well, motivated by religious hatred and not called terrorism. Their seems to be a degree of selective labelling going on, based on the background of the attacker.

I don't see your point 7/7 has got nothing to do with the thread. It occurred over 14 years ago and despite differing views on the subject, I don't see its relevance to the discussion.

I don't recall bringing it up previously, although I may have done in a different context. I have explained my reasons for bringing it up in the original post. The very fact that it happened in a courtroom and the security managed to shoot the victims husband rather than the attacker makes it a good example.

I understand that specific incidents such as Finsbury Park and NZ were reported as terror attacks. I'm more concerned with stabbings or seriouse physical assaults perpetrated against Muslims which occur more regularly. These crimes are usually reported as "religiously motivated hate crimes" if reported at all. It seems that when the perpetrator is deemed to be Muslim and the victim non Muslim the narrative changes instantly. It goes from being a stabbing incident to a major terrorist attack. That's not to take away from the victims of any form of violence for whatever motivation. However if the crime is religiously motivated the terror attack label shouldn't be applied selectively. My personal opinion is that a terror attack is a large scale attack. A bombing or a mass shooting at the least. In my view these smaller scale crimes are religiously motivated hate crimes rather than terrorist attacks. Of course in the majority of cases stabbings in the UK have no religious motive. And in the USA regular mass shootings tend to be a white supremacist issue but the mainstream media will use terms such as "mass shooting" and "gunman".

Sherbini, a pharmacist who was four months' pregnant and wore the Islamic head scarf, was involved in a court case against her neighbour after he called her a terrorist. She was due to testify when he stabbed her 18 times inside the courtroom in front of her three-year-old son. The woman's husband was critically wounded in the attack, after he tried to intervene and was stabbed by the attacker and accidentally shot by court security. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/07/muslim-woman-shot-germany-court So the reason I bring this up now is because of how the London Bridge murders are being reported. I chose the Dresden example because it took place in a courtroom, of all places. Furthermore the security shot her husband who was trying to defend her, rather than the terrorist. However, it seems that the attacker was not a terrorist, in fact I haven't come across a single anti Muslim hate crime being reported as terrorism in the mainstream media. This is only one of many attacks on Muslim women motivated by an evil ideology. Just type "Muslim woman attacked" into google, you will find case after case. So why aren't these attacks being reported as "terror attacks". Your thoughts?

What makes you think people in Iraq and Syria live in Caves? Iraq was a peaceful country before you know who went in there all guns blazing and destroyed the country with no plan for the aftermath. Interesting how Daeesh has its roots in the aftermath of Iraq.

Why do you think it is okay to send someone to a country of dual nationality if they are a suspect in the UK? Send them to another country to commit an offence against people in that country. How can that be morally justified? ---------- Post added 04-06-2017 at 15:32 ---------- Of course there are, it requires voting for the right sort of politician in the upcoming general election.

Iraq was a democratic decision. It was voted on in parliament, and those responsible murdered innocent civilians in the name of Freedom and Democracy. It has caused destruction in the region continuing to this day. However people like you seem to think that just because something is a Democratic decision it's fine. Therefore you wont call Iraq Democratic State Terrorism which is exactly what it was and you wont call Trump a hate preacher. It seems to be one rule for the West and another rule for the rest of the world especially Muslims.

I still do not understand how saying Israel should be moved to America is anti Jewish. The comment seems to be highlighting the hypocrisy of American foreign policy in the Middle East. A lot of people forget that the Palestinians are also semites, and therefore the oppression and racism perpetrated against them by Israel makes Israel the most anti semitic of all. These days it seems fine for the mainstream media and politicians to criticize Muslims any chance they get but any mention of Israel by someone in public office and they are forced to apologise for racism. Even though Israel is not a race or even a religion. Its a nation which came into existence at the expense of the local inhabitants which it has been killing and oppressing ever since. Here's a bit of food for thought. Imagine if Donald Trump had said ban all Jews instead of ban all Muslims. Would he still be running for the presidency, I think not!

There is no denial of responsibility. Muslims in general are not responsible for the actions of individuals who share the same faith. For you to claim otherwise is fascist. It seems to me like you are threatening Western Muslims? What do you mean by act now? What do you want Muslim citizens of the west to do? Denial of responsibility and blaming Islam will not help. Western Politicians have played a big part in the destruction of the Middle East and the formation of groups like ISIS. Western politicians killed and displaced millions of Muslims in Iraq for no reason. Name me a single Muslim politician, nation or terrorist group which has done anything close to that in the Western world? Unprovoked bombing and invasion of a sovereign country based on lies is terrorism not war. The politicians did it in the name of freedom and democracy. Should all who believe in freedom and democracy be blamed?

The gap between cities and towns in the south and the rest of the UK has widened over the past 10 years, according to a Centre for Cities analysis of Britain’s 64 largest cities and towns which draws on a decade of official data, despite stated efforts by the last two governments to bridge the north-south divide and rebalance the economy. The Cities Outlook report finds cities in the south are out-performing those in the rest of the country in terms of population growth and in the number of jobs and businesses created. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2015/jan/19/uk-cities-ranked-jobs-migration-house-prices-broadband-speeds-data Britain's fastest growing cities are all in the south – and its shrinking ones all in the north http://www.citymetric.com/business/britains-fastest-growing-cities-are-all-south-and-its-shrinking-ones-all-north-1323 I also came cross this http://www.cityam.com/207396/six-cities-grew-faster-london-last-decade 5 out of the 6 which grew faster than London were London satellite cities, and the the one which wasn't, was Aberdeen. Many people hold the view that the political classes have abandoned Northern England but the amount of money pumped into regeneration projects in the north, refutes this. My theory for the lack of northern growth is that companies prefer to be based in and around London. Also people who can afford to will generally choose to live in the South. Are there any solutions to this problem or do you think the North South divide will continue for years to come?

There are only a small number of people in Calais. Its not as if millions of people are trying to get into Britain from Calais. It wouldn't hurt the economy of Britain in the slightest to take them all in and resolve the crisis in that way. It only seems fare, considering Britains imperialist past and present day military involvement in the countries many of the migrants are coming from.

Miliband seems like much more of a decent straightforward guy as compared to most other politicians, especially Cameron. He's less of a warmonger as well. I think it will be a nice change for Britain if he gets in.

Surely the more important issue is why are the UK government along with some other Western and Arab governments carrying out bombings in Syria? These bombings have only increased the violence by IS who then started killing western and arab hostages. What is the end goal of these attacks? First they were supporting the rebels and now Assad.

So Blair gets away with killing millions of innocent civilians. Greg Dyke gets sacked from the BBC for trying to tell the truth about it and Clarkson gets sacked for smacking someone in the mouth. How does that work then?

No I mean what I said. After NATO invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was forced into supporting a western war. Pakistan took the largest number of Afghan refugees fleeing the war started by western nations. As a result some of those fighting NATO forces were also able to enter as refugees. They then turned on Pakistan for supporting the war and allowing drone strikes on its tribal areas. Many of the Pakistani recruits to the Taliban have joined as a result of drone bombings. Before 2001 the Taliban were unheard of in Pakistan and even in the tribal areas there was little Taliban influence. Most Pakistanis are tolerant friendly people, more so than Indians. Any English person who has visited Pakistan knows this well. It's the warped image you are fed from the British media. There were no attacks on Pakistani soil prior to 2001 by the Afghani Taliban and I challenge you to find a single source from authentic news reports of such attacks in Pakistan before the 2001 invasion. This whole situation in Pakistan has been created by America and its western allies. Similar situation in Iraq, prior to the 2003 invasion there were no bombings in that country. Now its IS and bombings galore. Yes the far right in England and sections of the British media have tried very hard to blame all Muslims and Islam for certain sexual offences carried out in England. The fact is though the offenders were not acting in the name of religion and all the victims were not white girls. Also sex offenders in the UK are not all of one ethnicity and most are white. The only difference is when its a non Muslim sex offender or pedo ring their ethnicity and religion are not highlighted by the media as the primary reason for them committing the offence.

It amazes me that some posters on Sheffield Forum routinely use the daily mail as a credible source.

What you've also forgotten to mention is that the Christian worshipers then turned on Muslim by standers beating two innocent men to death and burning them alive. There has been no backlash from the majority Muslim population and no Muslim mobs coming out to attack Christians. As we know Mosques are attacked in England and across Europe. Can you imagine the consequences for Muslims in the UK if Muslim mobs set upon innocent by standers and dragged them through the streets burning them alive in retaliation. The media would whip up religious tension straight away and create a frenzy. I haven't seen the Pakistani media doing that. They've been reporting on the mob violence but not in the racist manner that the British media do on these sorts of issues. I also suspect this is why there hasn't been much coverage of the attacks in the British media. They initially reported it but by continuing with the story they would also have to report on the senseless violence which followed, carried out by Christian mobs. The tolerant response by Pakistan would also then become apparent which would seek to dismantle the negative image of Pakistan portrayed in the mainstream British media. ---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 04:59 ---------- Furthermore this type of terrorism was unheard of in Pakistan before NATO invaded Afghanistan.

Yes you can refer to one of my earlier posts on another thread where I posted three links to different mass demonstrations by Muslims against extremism. None of which made the headlines. There have been a lot of efforts made by different Muslim organisations and individuals. The problem is the mainstream media is not as interested in the truth as it is in sensationalism. So the Muslim helping the old white lady next door carry her shopping home will not make headlines but is something encouraged by Islam. It's something which is taught in Mosques and Islamic institutions up and down this country. Help your neighbors whether Muslim or Non Muslim be kind to the elderly and so on. Media is not interested unless it's the actions of some nutter. There are people who have started their own media such as Mehdi Hasan editor of the Hufington Post. The man and his daughter who were attacked on the tram in Manchester by racist thugs while returning from the match. How was it that 200 passengers most of whom were other fans managed to stand by doing nothing? Some of them jumping up for a better view? Yet the girl herself was able to intervene and stand up to the thugs who were beating up her father? There seems to be more to it than just fear of getting involved.

Oh really so why does the US have more military bases around the world than any other country. The current situation in Libya is a direct result of NATO intervention by way of bombing Libya. The current situation in Syria is also a consequence of America backing of the rebels as well as stooge puppet allies in the Middle East also backing the rebels. After the emergence of ISIS America somewhat changed sides and the stooge allies followed. The problem now is neither the stooge Arab allies nor America and its western allies know who they're fighting for. The 2003 Iraq bombing and invasion was based on lies and nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people. You don't help people by bombing and occupying them imposing stooge sectarian puppet regimes on them. If Americas intentions were so honorable why were they supporting Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds in the 1988 massacre at Halabja? In 2003 when he wasn't doing anything suddenly America decides it must save the Iraqi people by killing them? America has a long history of this, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, drone strikes on various countries. America has military bases in Asia, South America, the Middle East, Europe. Yet you are complaining over Putin taking Crimea back? Putins actions pail into insignificance compared to American imperialist actions around the world. On the one hand you complain about Russian imperialism and on the other hand you try to justify it when it's the west doing it? America doesn't mind Middle Eastern dictators as long as they behave like stooges. Mubarak in Egypt and the Saudi Royal family to name a few. They only seem to have a problem when the dictator goes against American interests in the region. The beheading's of foreign nationals by IS started after America and other countries decided to start bombing in Syria and Iraq. Before that the fight was between the Asad regime Maliki regime and various rebel groups of which IS became the most prominent. This intervention like previous interventions is only seeking to fuel the flames of conflict rather than extinguishing them.

There's also massive evidence to show that Asian Muslim males in Rotherham are disproportionately represented in the night time economies of the town. They own the takeaways and drive the cabs which is why there is a higher number of Asian offenders in this type of night time on street grooming. However in overall grooming in the UK Asian Muslims are not disproportionately involved at all. You do an injustice to the people of Pakistan by calling these men Pakistani. For a start they didn't come over here from Pakistan and start committing offences. The offenders were all born and brought up in Rotherham. Secondly their parents or grandparents migrated from a select few villages in southern Azad Kashmir which is a separate region under Pakistani administration. The people from those villages in Azad Kashmir speak a different language to most people in Pakistan. They also have a strong sense of Kashmiri identity and see mainland Pakistanis as somewhat different to them. That doesn't mean they will not identify with Pakistan or Pakistanis but what it means is that they are a select group and not representative of Pakistanis in general. Therefore it would be better if you used the term Britsih Asian to describe these men because that's what they are.