Page 19 of 20

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2016-07-27, 1:38
by mōdgethanc
vijayjohn wrote:What's "anomie"? :hmm:


It's a key concept in sociology which is honestly kind of hard to explain, but can be loosely defined as "alienation". It literally means "normlessness" and refers to the confusion and uncertainty that results from a lack of direction in life eg. from rapid changes in the social order.

social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also : personal unrest, alienation, and anxiety that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals


It has been proposed as an explanation for all kinds of social phenomena such as suicide, crime, deviance, and so on. Basically, being left out of mainstream society can lead to bitterness, resentment and anger, so it's not hard to draw a connection between massive unemployment and poverty in Muslim countries and the number of young men who blame the West for all their problems and see radical Islam as an answer.

Radical Islam provides a community for disaffected men to belong to* and a sense of purpose. And once they get deep enough into it, they're willing to kill to achieve the group's objectives, much like a cult. These are just hypotheses, but I think this is a more in-depth analysis of the causes of terrorism than "Islam".

*This is also a common sociological explanation for why young men in poor communities often join gangs.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-05, 16:01
by Yasna
Nice video, and a good reminder that it is Muslims who suffer the most from Islamist terrorism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49nOBFv508

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 5:56
by Prowler
And a few days ago there was another attack, this time in London. I remember the days when terrorist attacks were very elaborate and required bombs and firearms. Nowadays all that's needed are a couple of loonies who happen to get their hands behind a wheel and decide to run over people and claim to have been influenced by propaganda videos and the likes. Also, in the previous decade terror attacks were larger in scale but happened less often. Now it feels like one happens in Europe every month or so. Not to mention sometimes it's not even a Muslim committing an attack but just a wacko who probably takes advantage of the current atmosphere and decide to go on a rampage hoping the cops don't catch him since everyone is gonna automatically assume at first that it was a Muslim.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 15:11
by linguoboy
Prowler wrote:And a few days ago there was another attack, this time in London. I remember the days when terrorist attacks were very elaborate and required bombs and firearms. Nowadays all that's needed are a couple of loonies who happen to get their hands behind a wheel and decide to run over people and claim to have been influenced by propaganda videos and the likes. Also, in the previous decade terror attacks were larger in scale but happened less often. Now it feels like one happens in Europe every month or so. Not to mention sometimes it's not even a Muslim committing an attack but just a wacko who probably takes advantage of the current atmosphere and decide to go on a rampage hoping the cops don't catch him since everyone is gonna automatically assume at first that it was a Muslim.

You should read up on the Troubles. Everything you just described in this paragraph was true of Northern Ireland in those days, but because it was an obscure corner of Europe and the conflict lacked much in the way of international dimension (even though many of the "Catholic" crusaders were actually Trotskyists), the media covered it completely differently.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 16:30
by Prowler
linguoboy wrote:
Prowler wrote:And a few days ago there was another attack, this time in London. I remember the days when terrorist attacks were very elaborate and required bombs and firearms. Nowadays all that's needed are a couple of loonies who happen to get their hands behind a wheel and decide to run over people and claim to have been influenced by propaganda videos and the likes. Also, in the previous decade terror attacks were larger in scale but happened less often. Now it feels like one happens in Europe every month or so. Not to mention sometimes it's not even a Muslim committing an attack but just a wacko who probably takes advantage of the current atmosphere and decide to go on a rampage hoping the cops don't catch him since everyone is gonna automatically assume at first that it was a Muslim.

You should read up on the Troubles. Everything you just described in this paragraph was true of Northern Ireland in those days, but because it was an obscure corner of Europe and the conflict lacked much in the way of international dimension (even though many of the "Catholic" crusaders were actually Trotskyists), the media covered it completely differently.

I remember vaguely watching violence i N. Ireland on the news back in the mid-late 90s, but I was a little kid at the time. Kosovo and Yugoslavia's issues got much more coverage.

Well, the UK has dealt with terrorism for a long time now. IRA used to attack London at times. I also remember hearing about ETA in the 90s. Haven't heard much about either group on the news in years.

I wonder if in the last years Europe as a whole has had more terror attacks than back in the 70s-80s when far left and far right organisations committed attacks quite often. :hmm:

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 16:36
by linguoboy
Prowler wrote:I wonder if in the last years Europe as a whole has had more terror attacks than back in the 70s-80s when far left and far right organisations committed attacks quite often. :hmm:

Image

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 17:36
by Prowler
Not even close, then.

I wonder if people feared terrorism as much as they do nowadays back in those days, then. Although people didn't have access to the internet and you wouldn't know of something thta happened in the other side of the world in like 2 minutes like you do nowadays.

Must be short memory, but I've heard older people say often lately "the world(aka Western Europe being the world for them) felt safer in the 80s despite Soviet Union being around still". Really weird. Also pretty asure crime rates were higher back in the 80s/90s in Western Europe than they are nowadays. :hmm:

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 17:43
by linguoboy
Prowler wrote:I wonder if people feared terrorism as much as they do nowadays back in those days, then. Although people didn't have access to the internet and you wouldn't know of something thta happened in the other side of the world in like 2 minutes like you do nowadays.

True, it did take a long time for news to travel from one tincan telephone operator to another.

Prowler wrote:Must be short memory, but I've heard older people say often lately "the world(aka Western Europe being the world for them) felt safer in the 80s despite Soviet Union being around still". Really weird. Also pretty asure crime rates were higher back in the 80s/90s in Western Europe than they are nowadays. :hmm:

The gap between perceived safety and actual safety is pretty huge. There are a lot of cognitive biases which come into play, but racism plays a large role. Among white people in my country, "bad neighbourhood" is almost synonymous with "nonwhite neighbourhood". They feel less safe in areas which are mostly nonwhite even if the actual crime rate is lower.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 17:48
by Prowler
linguoboy wrote:
Prowler wrote:I wonder if people feared terrorism as much as they do nowadays back in those days, then. Although people didn't have access to the internet and you wouldn't know of something thta happened in the other side of the world in like 2 minutes like you do nowadays.

True, it did take a long time for news to travel from one tincan telephone operator to another.

Prowler wrote:Must be short memory, but I've heard older people say often lately "the world(aka Western Europe being the world for them) felt safer in the 80s despite Soviet Union being around still". Really weird. Also pretty asure crime rates were higher back in the 80s/90s in Western Europe than they are nowadays. :hmm:

The gap between perceived safety and actual safety is pretty huge. There are a lot of cognitive biases which come into play, but racism plays a large role. Among white people in my country, "bad neighbourhood" is almost synonymous with "nonwhite neighbourhood". They feel less safe in areas which are mostly nonwhite even if the actual crime rate is lower.


There's an area in my city that has a lot of Indians(and Bangladeshis and other South Asians as well) and Chinese immigrants. The area can be a bit shady and some people find it "gross" or feel uncomfortable walking by there... but the dangerous people who live there actually tend to be some of the white folk who live there, and white people are a minority there or close to it, iirc. I guess that sort of thing is common in many countries.

EDIT: btw, this graphic is also interesting:

Image

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-06, 18:27
by linguoboy
The second graph must incorporate less data. It doesn't seem to cover Bataclan, for instance. I'm not sure what accounts for the discrepancy around 2011. The only big terrorist attack I can remember from that year was the one at DME, and that shouldn't be on either graph.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-07, 16:16
by Johanna
This is kind of ironic since this discussion is about how domestic terrorism has caused more deaths in Europe as a whole... Do the words "Breivik", "Oslo", "Utøya" ring a bell? ;)

That there is a discrepancy between the two diagrams isn't surprising as that attack happened in a Western European country that is not a member of the EU.

Edit: in 1988, should the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie really count? It looks like someone pretty high up in the Libyan government ordered it, and even though Gaddafi denied having given the order himself, it's not like he was the most trustworthy guy in the universe. He also accepted responsibility for it and paid compensation to the victims' families, which in the way of international politics looks an awful lot like a confession.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-07, 16:43
by Prowler
Man, Breivik. Had almost forgotten about that guy. That was crazy.

This isn't related to Europe but it's related to Islamic Terrorism, aka the title of this thread: Does anyone remember a video of Bin Laden denying responsibility for 9/11 some days/weeks after the attacks, claiming it to have been an action of men with their own motives or something like that? I don't, but apparently that happened. I wonder why Bin Laden would lie about that since he wasn't shy about committing terrorist attacks at all. I guess this is another argument conspiracy theorists use to support their "inside job" theory. But to me it was simply a big failure by US intelligence services. It happens. The modus operandi o terrorists caught them by surprise and remember that airport security hasn't always been so tight as it is nowadays. Non-passengers could go to the gates and watch the planes take off while they said goodbye to their relatives/friends. :lol:

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-07, 18:13
by Johanna
Prowler wrote:The modus operandi o terrorists caught them by surprise and remember that airport security hasn't always been so tight as it is nowadays. Non-passengers could go to the gates and watch the planes take off while they said goodbye to their relatives/friends. :lol:

So that's where that stereotypical romcom scene comes from? :shock:

I'm pretty sure that you couldn't do that here in the 90's though, after 9/11 the only thing that changed was what you could and could not bring through security checks. I think that the switch from spot checks to everyone having to have their stuff x-rayed happened after Lockerbie... And of course only letting people with a boarding pass airside.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-08, 5:49
by Prowler
Johanna wrote:
Prowler wrote:The modus operandi o terrorists caught them by surprise and remember that airport security hasn't always been so tight as it is nowadays. Non-passengers could go to the gates and watch the planes take off while they said goodbye to their relatives/friends. :lol:

So that's where that stereotypical romcom scene comes from? :shock:

I'm pretty sure that you couldn't do that here in the 90's though, after 9/11 the only thing that changed was what you could and could not bring through security checks. I think that the switch from spot checks to everyone having to have their stuff x-rayed happened after Lockerbie... And of course only letting people with a boarding pass airside.

Yeah you cant' bring certain times with you, but some of them then are available at duty free shops once you get past the passengers only part.

I believe one of the forbidden items are nailclippers, am I right? Tbh I don't think a terrorist would use a nailclipper to attack people and take over an airplane but who knows. :lol:

Another post 9-11 security measure is passengers not being allowed to take pictures of the plane as they board it... that's hard to implement when there's a flight with tons of German passengers since they seem to love to take pictures of airplanes.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-06-25, 20:07
by Yasna

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-07-22, 10:36
by vijayjohn
Late, but just because no one answered this:
Prowler wrote:I believe one of the forbidden items are nailclippers, am I right?

Yep, that's my understanding as well.
Tbh I don't think a terrorist would use a nailclipper to attack people and take over an airplane but who knows. :lol:

I don't think they would, either. :P This always struck me as kind of a paranoid security measure.

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-07-22, 10:46
by IpseDixit
vijayjohn wrote:
Tbh I don't think a terrorist would use a nailclipper to attack people and take over an airplane but who knows. :lol:

I don't think they would, either. :P This always struck me as kind of a paranoid security measure.


Maybe it wouldn't be used as a weapon per se but it could be used as a tool to use in combination with something else (I'm just speculating).

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-07-22, 10:48
by vijayjohn
IpseDixit wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:
Tbh I don't think a terrorist would use a nailclipper to attack people and take over an airplane but who knows. :lol:

I don't think they would, either. :P This always struck me as kind of a paranoid security measure.


Maybe it wouldn't be used as a weapon per se but it could be used as a tool to use in combination with something else (I'm just speculating).

But then what couldn't be?

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-07-22, 11:19
by Luís
What are you guys talking about?

Nail clippers are allowed in hand luggage.

USA
European Union
UK

Re: Islamic Terrorism

Posted: 2017-07-22, 21:40
by vijayjohn
But they weren't always, right? Maybe that might explain why we got confused?