Islamic Terrorism: Why There Is None in Japan. BS published on English Democrats Party Website.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So again, do you wish death and deportation for them as you proclaimed in your initial post in this thread?

a reply to: grainofsand

I do.

Now what?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Then we disagree.
I do not wish death on anyone solely because they hold vile opinions.
No sane person would

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Then we disagree.
I do not wish death on anyone solely because they hold vile opinions.
No sane person would

The ends justify the means.
If by killing racists we end racism, so be it.

They offer nothing but wasted oxygen and division anyways.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Wow, you'd kill a man for his thoughts?!
Shameful.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Then we disagree.
I do not wish death on anyone solely because they hold vile opinions.
No sane person would

The ends justify the means.
If by killing racists we end racism, so be it.

They offer nothing but wasted oxygen and division anyways.

How would you prove someone was a racist? More importantly, once accused of such a thing, how would they prove their innocence?

You'd need a bit more ammunition than someone inadvertently using a wrong word.

Would you kill all racists of all colours? If so, you might find some fascists who'd want to help you with that...

a reply to: grainofsand

I would deport or destroy fascists.

No sane person would want to be in a nation with people who want racial purity, uniformity of culture, or any other sort of thing like it.

a reply to: grainofsand

As per my response to Bone75, I looked into the claims more closely today.

I looked at the 2013 stats and compared them with terrorist attacks in Europe from 1998 to 2013. I have stopped at 2013 as the article's inferences relate to 2013, not 2015 (stats for 2014 are available but not 2015).

Worldwide:

In 2013, a total of 9,707 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 injuries. In addition, more than 2,990 people were kidnapped or taken hostage


Europe:

10 terrorist events since 1988. No events in 2013.

• March 2012: A gunman claiming links to al-Qaeda kills three Jewish schoolchildren, a rabbi and three paratroopers in Toulouse, southern France.

• Nov 2, 2011: Offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris are firebombed after the satirical magazine runs a cover featuring a caricature of the prophet Mohammed. No one is injured.

• July 22, 2011: Anti-Muslim extremist Anders Behring Breivik plants a bomb in Oslo then attacks a youth camp on Norway's Utoya island, killing 77 people, many of them teenagers.

• July 7, 2005: 52 commuters are killed when four al-Qaeda-inspired suicide bombers blow themselves up on three London subway trains and a bus.

• March 11, 2004: Madrid suffers what Spain's interior minister calls the country's "worst-ever terrorist attack," when a series of bombs on commuter trains kill 191 people and injure more than 1,800. It is the worst terrorist attack in Europe since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

• November 2003: At least 27 people are killed and more than 400 injured in bombings at the British consulate and the HSBC bank headquarters in Istanbul. The previous week suicide bombers attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, killing more than 20 people.

• Aug. 15, 1998: A car bomb planted by Irish Republican Army dissidents kills 29 people in the town of Omagh, in the deadliest incident of Northern Ireland's four-decade conflict.

• July 25, 1995: A bomb at the Saint-Michel subway station in Paris kills eight people and injures some 150. It is one of a series of bombings claimed by Algeria's GIA, or Armed Islamic Group.

• Dec. 21, 1988: A bomb explodes aboard Pan Am Flight 103, bound for New York from London, killing all 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground in the town of Lockerbie, Scotland.

Cherson conveniently omits the following 2013 stats from the source he quoted:

The ten countries that experienced the most terrorist attacks in 2013 are the same as those that experienced the most terrorist attacks in 2012. The ranking in terms of total attacks increased for Iraq, the Philippines, and Syria, decreased for Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen, and Somalia, and remained the same for Afghanistan, India, and Thailand. The number of total attacks increased for nine of the ten countries in Table 2. In Nigeria, the number of total attacks decreased 45 percent between 2012 and 2013; however, the total number killed increased 31 percent.

Although terrorist attacks occurred in 93 different countries in 2013, they were heavily concentrated geographically. More than half of all attacks (57%) and fatalities (66%), and nearly three-quarters of all injuries (73%) occurred in three countries: Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
By a wide margin, the highest numbers of attacks, fatalities, and injuries took place in Iraq. The average lethality of attacks in Iraq was nearly 40 percent higher than the global average (1.84 killed per attack) and 33 percent higher than the 2012 average in Iraq (1.92).

The average lethality of attacks in Syria (5.07) and Nigeria (6.06) exceeded the global average by 176 percent and 229 percent, respectively. As in 2012, the average number of people wounded in attacks in Syria in 2013 was particularly high at 8.36. This was 149 percent higher than the global average for injuries (3.36), but 38 percent lower than the average number injured in terrorist attacks in Syria in 2012.

Among the ten countries that experienced the most terrorist attacks in 2013, the average number killed per attack was lower than the global average for five (Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Yemen), and the average number wounded per attack was lower than the global average for eight (Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, Yemen, and Somalia).

From these statistics I am not sure how it can be inferred that Japan is safe from terrorist events due to a low Muslim population. If you remember, the remaining sources are from his book which you have to buy.

With regards to Japan I found the following:

In Japan the government does not take religion into account as part of the demographic concern under religious freedom. As Michael Penn states, "The Japanese government does not keep any statistics on the number of Muslims in Japan. Neither foreign residents nor ethnic Japanese are ever asked about their religion by official government agencies"

Muslim numbers have been speculated to be around 100, 000 although scholars believe this to be around 70, 000.

There are currently between 30 and 40 single-story mosques in Japan, plus another 100 or more apartment rooms set aside, in the absence of more suitable facilities, for prayers.

Tokyo Camii is the largest mosque in Japan.



... cont

This article is from the Japan Times (2014) titled "Can Japan show the West how to live peacefully with Islam?" Muslims here find respite from sectarian divisions and prejudice rife in other regions of the world"

I cannot see any evidence of prejudice towards Muslims in this article.

A snippet

It feels different from Western environs, where Christianity and Islam are seen as the other’s Other. There is the fear of a Muslim planet — an immigrant force out-populating the natives, seeking to set up a caliphate governed by Islamic law. Afraid of a stealth ideology, conservatives such as the historian Sir Martin Gilbert warn that “the European idea is being subverted by Islamic hostility to the very ethics and values of Europe itself.” The message is picked up by politicians and media exploiting the Muslim bogeyman.

“The larger threat comes not from the immigrants themselves, but from our response to them,” Doug Saunders counters in his book “The Myth of the Muslim Tide: Do Immigrants Threaten the West?”

“These are clashes within civilizations, not between them,” Saunders writes, “and to a large extent they are products of the false belief, held by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the world is divided into fixed and irreconcilable civilizations.”

With an array of surprising facts, Saunders claims to show that most Muslim immigrants have no wish for Shariah law. Likewise, he writes, their fertility rates are actually decreasing as this diaspora adjusts to lifestyles and trends in the West.

Meanwhile, in Japan, no one frets over the Great Decline. Islamophobia is not an industry; the Other here is Chinese. The Japanese may be drawn to what they see as the pureness, the disciplined abnegation on display during Ramadan, yet unlike some in the West, they don’t appear to feel challenged by perceptions of superior spirituality.

1 2 3 4

As much as I want to be out of the illiberal, undemocratic EU, I will not accept the fear tactic that all Muslims are potential terrorists.

Maybe its just boils down to the fact that Japan is not bombing the middle east (Occam's razor).

a reply to: TrueBrit

You might find this interesting, from Brendan O'Neil, on why we must have the freedom to hate.

To lump together unpopular moralities as ‘hatred’ is to create a new category of heresy. Indeed, in modern parlance, the phrase ‘hate speech’ plays the same role ‘heretical’ once did: it denotes views that officialdom or self-styled representatives of fragile minorities have decreed to be wicked, and inexpressible. In our post-moral times, where it’s risky to say that any viewpoint is better than another, the self-elected guardians of public safety cannot write people off as evil. So instead they accuse them of practising ‘hate speech’ and throw the legal book at them. It’s a sly form of censorship, elevating the subjective feelings of the listener, their sense of being under-valued, over the objective right of the speaker to express his beliefs.

The second problem with the war on hate is also seen in campus life: the wrongness of silencing even those views most of us agree are actually hateful. If it’s wrong to rebrand outré moral views as ‘hatred’, it’s equally wrong to censor real hatred. Student unions ban far-right groups. They create ever-growing safe spaces in which certain racist or anti-gay ideas can’t be expressed. This seems nice, an attempt to expel foul views from public zones — but it’s actually the worst way imaginable to deal with prejudiced ideologies.

Censorship doesn’t tackle, far less defeat, ugly views; it just pushes them aside. It has the terrible double effect of allowing the hateful ideology to fester and grow — unchallenged, unexposed — while depriving the rest of us of the ability, and right, to see, know and dent that ideology. It strengthens the haters, convincing them their idea must be really challenging if it freaks out society so much, and it weakens the right-thinking, absolving us of the human duty to stand up to what we think is wrong. Here, too, campus life mirrors what has happened across society as hate-speech laws have spread.

The policing of hate speech is bad for everyone. For those whose views are simply controversial, who find themselves redefined as ‘hate groups’; for those who want to challenge real hateful ideologies, who can never meaningfully confront them; for the minorities supposedly being protected, who are reduced to moral minors to be quarantined in a safe space for their own good, their fragile souls guarded by switched-on student leaders or officials. The bottom line is this: we must be free to hate. Hatred is an emotion, and when a society controls emotions, it’s not a free society. Rather, it’s a society in which authoritarianism has become so entrenched that moral guardians even think they can tell us what we may feel. The war on hate speech is the end not only of freedom of speech, but of the basic freedom of the mind.

We must have the freedom to hate


berenike's first post on this thread is absolutely correct (I meant you rather than smurfy in my post on the second page).

We can't all cry for freedom and then try to take away theirs.

One man’s ‘hate speech’ is another man’s deeply felt belief.

Edit: Although I have concerns about ED party members being put forward as PCC candidates, I don't believe they should be banned. They should be challenged (might have found myself a new mission!)

One cannot, by definition, be a fascist by being against fascism. It is not physically possible.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Among the closest thing we have to fascists in modern Britain are people who call themselves ‘anti-fascists’. Not all people who call themselves ‘anti-fascist’, thank goodness. But a sizable portion. If you ever see these people in action you will notice that they behave in exactly the way you would expect their alleged opponents to behave. It is not just their behaviour (screaming, shouting, marching, fighting, threatening, brawling etc) that is so evocative of fascism. It is the belief that their rigid belief system is the only correct one and that all opponents are ‘scum’ who must be ‘smashed’ (this really is the language they use).

Some anti-fascists are very fascistic

grainofsand ... absolutely nothing gets past you on ATS does it lol.

a reply to: Morrad

Lol, some things just shouldn't slide ever, and wishing death for people who hold opinions we consider vile is a good example.
The members who expressed such thoughts are no better than the people they hate.
I just called them out so others can see it themselves.