Iceni warrior

Don't you just hate it when someone accuses you of denying that something happens when you have specifically said that you don't. But well done for focusing on one case of suspected terrorism and ignoring all the cases of stabbings related to crime.

The only thing known for sure is that the American prison system needs more funding. A quote from some retired ''expert'' on a case with which he has no first hand knowledge on a RW news service proves nothing. That's all I'm saying. That and the OP was deliberately misleading by calling him ''the coroner''.

So having failed you now try to put words in my mouth. I'm not denying that a tiny proportion of machete attacks are related to radical Islam. I'm pointing out that the vast majority are not. My main point is to point out how dishonest it was to link an incident related to gang crime to Islam by putting it in this thread.

Oh get fucked. I'm not going to justify any machete attack on anyone for any reason. Cherry picking machete attacks motivated by radical Islam does not justify linking a gang related incident in a cinema to Islam. It's clear what your motivation for doing that was.

So, a handful of cases over a dozen years or more compared to many thousands of machete attacks related to crime over the same period. Thank you, you make my point for me.

Why would you imply that I think they are fake news? Strawman aside, how many of the 16 attacks per day (in that 2 month period) were related to crime and how many were because of Islam? I'll tell you, they are overwhelmingly related to criminal activity. Now why are you concentrating on the tiny minority of these attack which are inspired by radical Islam? To the point where you think an incident in a cinema directly related to gang warfare belongs in this thread.

My stance is that you are dishonestly linking a machete incident (a child was found in posession but hadn't attacked anyone) at a cinema with Islam. You fail to answer why this article was posted in this thread when it belongs in a thread about gang crime. You are implying that the rise of such incidents is due to Islam. You are basing this on a single attack on a British soldier. Clearly, that one murder was influenced by ISIS. The vast majority of incidents involving machetes are not and you refuse to acknowledge this.

Of course you don't. You are desperate to link machete crimes with Islam and ignore any links to gang crime.

Right, so you didn't even read the link past the headline. It was a multiscreen cinema. The violence was from youths coming out of a screening of Blue Story. A film about inner city gangs which has been pulled by one cinema chain.

Yet this conversation started with a link to an incident at a cinema showing a film about gang crime. No one has bothered to answer my question about why the link was posted in this thread. Mind you, I already know so it was a rhetorical question anyway.

Unless you are prepared to accept that the vast majority of machete attacks have nothing to do with Islam we are just going to go around in circles. I understand fully why you won't. Of course I am not going to deny that machete attacks have been carried out in the name of Islam but it is gang crime which is driving the rising figures.

So you know for a fact that there were no machete attacks here before Lee Rigby do you? As I said the vast majority of knife crime is criminal activity. Just because you can find a few which aren't you don't get to blame Islam for the rise in knife crime.

No they didn't. That's just the first time you heard about them. The vast majority of knife crimes and acid attacks are simple criminality. Drug turfs, robbery etc. You are trying to link them with Islam to promote an agenda. Driving cars into crowds is an unwanted result of the difficulty terrorist have getting hold of guns and explosives in the UK due to fighting a 30 year war with Irish republicans.

Why are you trying to link machete and acid attacks with Islam? Both are a result of gang crime not Islam.

The Nazis applied the law selectively. They never banned speech inciting hatred towards Jews for example. In fact they encouraged it. "Nazis banned free speech too" is just a lazy argument.

Offensive speech makes the target feel ostracised from society so you are defeating your own argument there.

What evidence do you have that restricting incitement to hatred leads to more hatred? The opposite is far more logical. Offensive and derogatory language encourages people to think of others as Untermensch and therefore legitimate targets.

What is the downside of restricting incitement to hatred? I'm not going to accept ''but freedom of speech'' as an answer.

So you admit that there is a link between offensive speech and violence (or discrimination)?

Driving drunk doesn't always lead to road traffic accidents, by your logic it should only be punishable when it does.

Inciting hatred can lead directly to violence and other forms of discrimination. What you do when you use derogatory language to describe a group of people is enable others to think they are ''lesser''. Then it is a short step towards treating them differently ie discrimination.

Read it again and pay special attention to the words ''inciting hatred''.

What's up with posting this in the Islam thread? Also why does that 2nd article lead with ''in theatre showing Frozen 2'' when the brawl was people coming out of a film about gang crime?

Wait, I found one that ticks all the boxes

To be fair, I have no evidence that he's a homophobe.