Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Islamic State Documents Identify Thousands of Jihadis (sky.com)
itwbennett writes: Sky News reports that it was handed a USB stick with 'tens of thousands of documents' detailing phone numbers and family contacts of Islamic State members by 'a disillusioned convert' to Islamic State. 'One of the files marked 'Martyrs' detailed a brigade manned entirely by fighters who wanted to carry out suicide attacks and were trained to do so,' according to Sky News. CSO Online's Steve Ragan had a little fun at ISIS' expense and worked up a data breach notification that ISIS HR is free to use should they so choose.
As I understand it ISIS is basically a different system now than it was in 2013. Still it should provide a huge number of places to investigate. Godspeed, FBI.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
just wanted to point out that when wikileaks and other documents about western government activities were leaked, western media organizations given full access to them( like guardian etc) went through them blanking out names etc of people who may be endangered( like intelligence agents) by the leaks, before publishing them. wikileaks itself published them after such vetting by selected journalists. there was no doubt about the authenticity of those documents btw.
now not so authenticated lists of alleged isis members are published with "family contacts", but no such safeguards are taken.
as i said, i am just pointing out this is a double standard.
well as they say, all is fair in war huh? and western private media seem to be fighting the war on one side just as much as soldiers. question is are they then entitled to protection?
Who else things that these names and addresses are actually U.S. government employee data that came from the OPM hack a while ago, and they are publishing it as "These are ISIS people!" as a "*Psych*! Gotcha!"???
Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace? Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims. They control many totalitarian states that are particularly abysmal with respect to human rights. Why are there so many apologists for Islam? There's much outrage when a Christian-owned bakery refuses to cater for an LGBT wedding but there's silence when Muslims commit acts of violence against nonbelievers. Why is Islam given a free pass when they do far worse things? Islam is far more repressive than Christianity, but somehow this is tolerated. Why?
Because you haven't mentioned Christian or Buddhist terrorists who do the same thing. Islam's beliefs are old fashioned and in my opinion not very well adapted to the modern world, but there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists. Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals: the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
When your baker turns away an LGBT couple, he's doing so soley because of his religious beliefs, and for no other reason; when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell. However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Is that IS leadership leaked it themselves to trap members to stay and fight.
If they are on the list they have no safe harbour but IS.
Only the racists believe there are. In reality, there's only a few. It's those Republicans that lie and claims there's more than a small handful in the entire world.
This is just some cartels black list of folks who know too much.
Buddhist terrorists? Lol. What is with all these distractionist clowns who stretch the truth farther than that goatse guy's sphincter"?
If there's any religion out there that would classify as "religion of peace" it's Buddhism or Jainism.
When do the drone strikes commence? And will anyone bother to verify that they are actual bad guys and not random people on a fake list?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
That's all very happy-clappy but the baker didn't want to kill anyone for their beliefs.
Because Muslims just want to live in the house of peace.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Indeed http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
https://www.rt.com/usa/335132-...
Kozen Sampson, a Buddhist monk and co-founder of the Trout Lake Abbey retreat, said he was attacked Monday during a visit to Hood River.
....
He doesn't remember much, but says a man, who seemingly thought he was Muslim based on his clothing, attacked him for no reason.
But instead of anger and hatred towards that man, Sampson said he only feels forgiveness and compassion.
> Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace?
Because the entire world will be at peace once the entire world is Muslim? :)
In Buddhism, there is no 'martyr', that is they don't encourage for 'be ready to die for your religion'.
Monk like the ones mentioned in the article will have karma 'Terrible' and his life will be buried in '-1: Redundant' mod.
However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
Disclaimer: I'm a Canuck.
You don't need to fall to discriminating. Non-western Muslims have done that all on their own, and in some cases western muslims especially those that are first or second generation. Fun reminder: It was CAIR who told muslims not cooperate with police, and it was also CAIR who were unindicted co-conspirators in funding terrorism. It was also various muslims(mainly fundamentalist) who attacked reformists who told police and security services that the police *should* be investigating mosques and in turn keeping a very watchful eye on muslims that go to mosques that are preaching fundamentalism. There's a schism without a doubt, and right now it's reformist vs fundamentalist. And many in the west would rather bury their head in the sand over it.
Om, nomnomnom...
> there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists
Are there really though?
Then why are their countries all overrun with these idiots?
And why is it that whenever they are interviewed their answers regarding sharia law, stoning, cutting off hands and women driving, their answers are almost indistinguishable from all the things ISIS wants?
I'm sure there are good muslims, but they are a minority.
Do we not even understand how a wedding cake and MASS MURDER are different? Really? Those are equivalent acts in your mind?
And I can't help but notice that, once again, a leftist is jumping up front and center to defend Islamist killers. Why does this keep on happening? It's like they're allied together in the service of destroying Western civilization.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It is a religion of peace by subjugation of all others. It is nothing more than a cult that has grown large enough to takeover nations...
If you kill any opposing view it leaves behind it "peace".
Christians and others expanded similarly except with Islam it's quite a bit more pronounced handbook for take over and oppression.
Religion is a tool for the corrupt and a crutch for the weak of mind.
If Buddhists protecting their way of life are terrorists then so are we.
Why is it that Buddhists are called terrorists when they fight violent Islamists but when western nations do the same thing for the same reasons they are considered peacekeepers?
Islam is a religion of many faces. There are about 1400 million Muslims, as different from each other as two random Anonymous Cowards.
Most of those differences are irrelevant to the topic and you know that too.
Why is it that Buddhists are called terrorists when they fight violent Islamists but when western nations do the same thing for the same reasons they are considered peacekeepers?
Haven't been paying attention to the news much? Regressives have been calling western nations "colonizers" and "attempting cultural genocide" for over a decade when the west fights back.
Om, nomnomnom...
The problem with even the moderate muslims (or with their beliefs) is that they are muslims first, citizens second. You are right: even many moderate muslims who wouldn't dream of stooping to violence themselves would vote for sharia law if it was brought to a vote. They feel they are obliged to. And the actual content of their religion plays a big role here! Not all religions are create equal as we are led, cautioned and forced to believe; islam has some pretty hardcore stuff in there and precious little of the whoever-is-without-sin or turn-the-other-cheek stuff. In a race of "who is the better muslim?", things get dark quickly. Even if it all happens by wholly democratic means. Egypt's "spring" went south pretty fast.
Here in Europe we don't have a problem with terrorists or with muslims; of the former there are precious few, and the latter are pretty normal people, individually. But the beliefs of those normal people can still be dangerous if they gather (vote) in large numbers. We do have a problem with islam gaining in influence. And our democracy is poorly protected against such influence: a previous minister of justice stated that if enough people wanted sharia, it would become the law (and he stated it as a matter of fact, not as a warning).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
How dare those Buddhists defend themselves against violent Islamic extremists! They should convert to Islam immediately!
Because the entire world will be at peace once the entire world is Muslim? :)
I know that you meant it as a joke, but even that is very far from truth. Majority of Islam-induced violence is actually intra-faith. I have read something about 90%+ of victims being Muslims, just of different brand.
And nature abhors a vacuum, so even if only one brand would be left in the world, there would be deadly schism very soon and circle of violence would start again.
> there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists
Are there really though?
Then why are their countries all overrun with these idiots?
Are you really that dense?
Do you really think that the leaders in North Korea represent the population well? Or is it just that you think that the militant groups in the middle east somehow better represents the population than in other countries?
Is Trump and his supporters representative of the US?
Um, he said:
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell.
That doesn't sound like a "leftist" defending Islamist killers.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe. Of course, there are other issues in Europe right now to do with the migrant crisis, but we are talking about terrorism here. Globally Muslims are responsible for about 10% of terrorist acts. Most importantly, the chance of being affected by Islamic terrorism is vanishingly small, much less so than the chance of being affected by homophobia for example.
So don't try to compare to the two. They are very different and we can care about both. Putting effort into fixing one does not mean we don't care about the other, but undeniably working on LGBT rights is likely to have much more impact on many more people's lives than crapping our pants over Islamic terrorism is.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because you cam bt your ass that the US govt. won't begin actively targeting ISIS just because of this info, even though the pentagon would love for it to.
Christians and others expanded similarly except with Islam it's quite a bit more pronounced handbook for take over and oppression.
The specific parts about taking over and killing heathens is in the part that is common between the Abrahamic religions.
Everything that encourages violence in Islam is exactly the same in Christianity and Judaism.
I don't know exactly where it is in each book, but for Christianity you should check Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus in the Bible.
It is repeated several times over to kill anyone of the wrong faith. It also explicitly tells believers to kill all gay men (Not lesbians for some reason.) and advocates murder of adulterers. The encouragement to kill sorceresses and fortune tellers shouldn't be much of a problem unless you believe in them too.
Isaiah 14:21 demands that sons are killed if the father commits such a crime to prevent criminality to spread through genetics.
Jeremiah 48:10 says that anyone who refrains form killing in the name of God should be cursed.
Granted, the Bible has some encouragement for violence even in the part that it doesn't share with the other two like Luke 19:27 and Matthew 10:34, but those are testaments rather than encouragement to others.
Anyway, whenever you see someone state things in the Quran to show that Islam encourages violence it is most likely in the part that is shared with the old testament and Christianity has the exact same phrase.
I do not know enough about the Quran to say if there are unique parts of it that encourages violence. Every time I've seen violent parts quoted it has always been thins I recognize from the Bible.
Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals:
Most Muslims are not violent or psychopathic DESPITE their religion. Most religious people ignore the parts of their religion that aren't compatible with morals they picked up elsewhere (or some argu,e born with). The only Muslims that are violent are those who have ONLY Islam to guide their actions.
the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
The bin Laden family is rich. Osama did not turn to terrorism because of any of the above. Many terrorists are well educated engineers. They tend to join these groups because it gives them a sense of meaning to their lives, which is something that religions claim to be the sole providers of. Islam goes even further to make violent martyrdom a highly meaningful act.
when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
But it is the sole cause. When Tibetan Buddhists protest, or that well known image from the Vietnam War, they only set themselves on fire and no one else comes to harm. And I consider myself a very liberal minded person who thinks Western nations have a responsibility to take in all the refugees caused by the post 9/11 Middle East adventure.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
It is a religion of peace by subjugation of all others. It is nothing more than a cult that has grown large enough to takeover nations...
And how is this different from christianity?
Oh, wait, I know. Christians already did this so we must stop others to do the same.
racism is racism, no matter if you're a wasp or a muslim.
However there were Christian activists who did kill people over abortion. Don't forget larger scale violence using religion as the excuse; Irish separatists in Northern Ireland, the crusades, etc.
Really? Who's doing the other 98%?
It seems a few Fenian remnants have crawled out of their hole. But that aside I can't think of much they, or the UDA, or ETA or the Red Army Faction etc etc have got up to recently.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why do you dodge the 'most of the terror in the world today' part with a disingenious 'some others do it too'? You dodge the main point and then claim gp should be ashamed? Disingouity followed by an ad hominem? Why do moderators fall for these tricks?
If most acts of X are committed by Y and someone asks why this is so, claiming discrimination is effectively telling the one who asks the question to shut up because you say he is a bigot. You are wilfully distorting the discussion.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Do we not even understand how a wedding cake and MASS MURDER are different? Really? Those are equivalent acts in your mind?
And I can't help but notice that, once again, a leftist is jumping up front and center to defend Islamist killers. Why does this keep on happening? It's like they're allied together in the service of destroying Western civilization.
@DNS-and-BND don't forget that in 1992 Christian Serbs massacred approximately 80,000 Muslim Bosnians.
One doesn't have go very far back to find cases of MASS MURDER performed by non-Muslims.
[sarcasm on]
EIGHTY EFFING THOUSAND MUSLIMS MASSACRED BY CHRISTIANS!!!!
Therefore ALL Christians MUST be persecuted and assumed to be terrorists unless proven innocent!!!!!!
Reference: http://www.history.com/topics/bosnian-genocide
Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace?
Because for most Muslims it is.
Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims.
Perhaps so. However, a rational mind blames those that are responsible, not the whole culture they come from.
Also, note that Muslims haven't been keeping pace on mass killings in the USA lately.
They control many totalitarian states that are particularly abysmal with respect to human rights.
Quite so. Utterly inexcusable.
Also utterly inexcusable that the west are in bed with so may of them - or even established them. And "loaned" them prisoners during the Bush administration. (And after?)
See also: Latin Amerca.
Why are there so many apologists for Islam?
Probably because there are so many people like you spreading irrational islamophobia.
There's much outrage when a Christian-owned bakery refuses to cater for an LGBT wedding but there's silence when Muslims commit acts of violence against nonbelievers.
Silence? Pull your head out.
Why is Islam given a free pass when they do far worse things? Islam is far more repressive than Christianity, but somehow this is tolerated. Why?
Tolerated? Please pull your head out.
Your troll score is: 2/10.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
More likely because the Christians will yell and scream at you while the Islamist groups if given the opportunity will outright kill you when you make crap up and distort their religion, religious characters, or religious sources.
Probably the most perversely funny thing I've ever seen on television news was a decade or more ago when two sects of Buddhist monks were fighting over possession of a temple on a street corner. The streets were full of bald men in robes going at it with quarterstaffs.
(I half expected to see Jackie Chan come crawling out of the side of the crowd.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ashamed? It is a valid question. It does not contain any blanket statements, just asks about our perception of a religion. Honestly your response does not answer the question. You mention other religious groups identified with violence but do not actually address the religious doctrine of those other religions. Given your response one might ask if other religions are also violent. Happily some people's minds are more capable than the thoughts in your post. Just because violence is performed by groups in the name of religion does not mean the religion itself is violent. You will have a hard time finding support for violence in Buddhist doctrine. It is easy to find passages in core texts that support violence in the Abrahamic faiths. Your response confuses particular political and cultural motivations with religion. We have seen groups grab on to religion when they are really acting according to their regional motivations. The question should not be suppressed by shaming. It is a valid question for Islam as well as Buddhism and Christianity. Actually considering the question can inform people about the particulars of those belief systems.
Really? Who's doing the other 98%?
I'm curious where he got those numbers, and of course there's always the fudge of who decides what qualifies as terror, but you merely have to turn on the evening news to see who's killing who in the USA.
Of course, if a genuine psycho or other non-Jihadist murderer goes on a rampage you might only hear it mentioned once (if at all), whereas they'll talk about Jihadist killings for months.
And that's from our "liberal" corporate media.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In Buddhism, there is no 'martyr', that is they don't encourage for 'be ready to die for your religion'.
You must be joking. Just type "budhist imolation" into the search engine of your choice.
Example:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/200114/on-the-50th-anniversary-of-buddhist-monk-thich-quang-ducs-self-immolation/
Now that two citations for Buddhist terrorism have been given by the left, we see that there isnt really any.
People setting themselves on fire is not terrorism, and "mob justice" is also not terrorism.
Muslims also drink water. The fact that I also drink water does not make me a terrorist. If I set myself on fire that wouldn't make me a terrorist.
To be clear folks, this guy cited an act where a Buddhist set himself on fire in protest, and then pretended that it was terrorism. The only link, and its a horrible one, that this has to terrorism is that a Muslim also once set himself on fire.
So not only did this guy make the leap from protest to terrorism, he also made the leap from Muslim to terrorism. You lefties are the fucking biggots.
"His name was James Damore."
I liked the security firm that was hired to deal with the problem. I hear they have a reputation for quick response times and excellent technical skills.
So why doesn't Indonesia have Sharia law yet? The country is 80% Muslim yet the democratically elected party in power cracks down as hard as it can on Islamic terrorists. The party that lost the election also cracks down as hard as it can on Islamic terrorist (when they were in power). The 2 biggest parties seem to compete on who cracks down on Islamic terrorists the most.
The party that runs on a platform of Sharia law? They can't get enough votes to get a single representative in parliament. In an 80% Muslim country.
it seems to me that if you actually give Muslims a chance to vote, they don't seem to favor hard-line fundamentalism. It's only if you screw around with their voting (or have no voting at all) that Islamic fundamentalism takes hold. And even then, the hard-liners have to constantly, heavily enforce their rules and literally beat the populous into submission.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe.
This page has some sources, but also states: In January 2015, The Economist compiled data regarding deaths due to political violence in western Europe since 2001. These data show that the death toll associated with Islamist terror is particularly high, especially when compared with the low overall proportion of religiously motivated attacks reported by Europol.
The list of incidents on that page seems to confirm this.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
If the whole world were Muslim, the ones living on Oak Street would be fighting the ones living on Pine Street. It's a cancer on the body of the Earth and if you let it spread worldwide, we all lose.
Here in Europe we don't have a problem with terrorists or with muslims
The people that worked for Charlie Hebdo would disagree with you if they werent killed by fucking terrorists, and Muslims.
Europe has had a problem with specifically Muslim terrorists for literally hundreds of years you ignorant apologist twat. They also have a big problem with non-Muslim terrorists you ignorant apologist twat.
The only reason to open your mouth and be that ignorant is if you really dont give a fuck about actually saying things that arent demonstrably wrong.
"His name was James Damore."
It's not support for Islam, it's the ideology of multiculturalism that seeks to sweep under the rug the negative attributes of non-white and non-Western cultures. The blatant and disingenuous lack of acknowledgement of violence associated with Islam is no different than the willingness to ignore the rampant criminality among Blacks.
The false equivalence applied to Christians who discriminate according to their religious beliefs isn't much different, and is its own hypocritical moral relativism. Given the atrocious treatment of gays and women among Muslim populations, you would expect at least an equivalent criticism of Islam -- yet instead, we get apologists, and apologists who defend "voluntary" cultural practices like restrictive dress for women or support for Islamic workers who are fired because they can't walk away from their jobs to pray whenever they want. Can you imagine how little support they would provide if Christians demanded prayer time on their own terms from a liberal-owned business?
Now all we need to do is decrypt their iPhones and all our problems will be over!
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Are you seriously saying that because bad things happened in the past we should allow bad things in the present and future?
Tell that to Joseph Kony!
I'm kind of surprised people are not aware of Buddhist violence and terrorism, especially over the last decade. They even outright slaughtered some of your Jains a few years ago. You might want to do some Googling on this. Here is a link, don't let the domain fool you, the story is not embellished.
http://www.christianpost.com/n...
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I jist don't get it. Obama says we can't get info like this as long as encrypted cell phones are around.
Twinstiq, game news
No, I'm just saying we shouldn't make such a fuss over the religion part of the whole deal.
They don't give a crap about religion, they are just using it as a mean to gather public sympathy. Just like the christians.
Because of an unfortunate thing called 'freedom of religion'. So many right wing hardcore bible thumpers drilled religion into a freedom that now us lefties give it a free pass. I'm not allowed to judge the christian holy book for condoning incest and pedophilia so when I hear Muslims condone the same thing, why should I feel any different?
Wow, blinded by your own self-loathing, butt-hurt "religion of hate" you can't see that Radical Islam desires to slit your throat - it's in the Quran, or blow people into oblivion or decapitate children because they are 'infidels.' That is one hell of a difference over Sister Mary whacking your delicate little knuckles with a ruler. (Still haven't gotten over that eh?)
It seems you are unable to differentiate some basic facts here. (PS: I'm an atheist, but I recognize current reality.)
The page you linked to says that most terrorism is by separatists and extreme left wing groups. Islamic terror deaths account for a large proportion of religiously motivated terrorism, but it's still a small amount overall.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
ah! yet another tu quoque argument attempt.
Islam has it very clearly stated in its dogma that terrorism is allowed and even encouraged.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Why_Terrorism_is_Allowed_in_Islam
As for "not all Muslims are terrorists". They are not terrorists because they are acting in spite rather than because of what their dogma tells them to do.
ISIS are scary because they actually do what is really written in trusted Islamic dogma such as the Quran and the Sahih Ahadith. Terrorism, rape, murder and forced conversions are very much part of this dogma.
"Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace? Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims"
Islam has no central authority, so over the years it has developed many branches based on minor differences in the interpretation of doctrine, much like Protestant sects. The death-cult Wahhabi interpretation that arose in the nineteenth century happened to have been rooted in a dirt poor desert tribe called the Saudis. When the Saudis became wealthy in the twentieth century, Wahhabism gained power and prestige along with them.
Imagine what a world we would live in if the Koch brothers had decided that the Westboro Baptists had the moral right to speak for all of Christianity, and poured their money into this one cult.
Here in Europe we don't have a problem with terrorists or with muslims;
Ummm... WHAT? Wow. ~
Example from history: George Galloway. Nobody thinks he's a nice bloke anymore (even the socialist left in the UK, pretty much, particularly now he's decided he's pro-Brexit), but the evidence used to drag him, hilariously, in front of an inept, posturing, childish bunch of US politicians was comically faked.
This stuff gets faked. It's possible in this case that all the people mentioned actually are IS fighters and for this document _still_ to be a fake.
Don't trust your eyes.
"Imagine what a world we would live in if the Koch brothers had decided that the Westboro Baptists had the moral right to speak for all of Christianity, and poured their money into this one cult."
That is a rather excellent analogy.
(Islam, indeed, is so divided up that one of the major branches of Islam in the UK, the Ahmadiyya community, are not even considered muslims by most of the islamic world. Much like the way the Christian world sees much of the Church of England.)
You're a cock.
Replace Muslim/Islam with Vegetarian/Vegetarianism to see why.
Some vegetarians gathered at the local supermarket and killed someone? Raped someone? Shit, all vegetarians need to be arrested / exterminated, no? Fucking idiot.
You have a correlation (the terrorists in this case are claiming to follow Islam), not a causation (Islam did not make them terrorists - there are MILLIONS of Islamic people who are not terrorist that you want to conveniently ignore, like there are millions of vegetarians who didn't shove cucumbers up people's arses in protest)..
Not even that, the correlation is tenuous. I'm British. We're far from new to terrorism, on either side of the coin. Fuck, we spent most of the 80's/90's being bombed to oblivion by the IRA.
The IRA? Formed, if you dig deep enough, because of two main groups in opposition to each other, colloquially assigned as "Catholics" and "Protestants". Are Catholics bombers? Are Protestants? Like with the vegetarians - some but not all, and they aren't bombers because they are protestant, they are bombers who happen to ALSO BE lumped into a religious group (somewhat unfairly, in fact, and Ireland was divided and referred to for many years by such religious groupings rather than, say, those who opposed British rule and those who didn't).
The last bomber I saw on the news was a car driver. Are car drivers all bombers? Or was this bomber just happening to be a car driver? Or... maybe.. if you want to discredit some group you become a bomber and SAY you part of their organisation. Is there an "Islamist Club" membership card or do we just have the words of some passer-by interviewed for the news story.
Take your fucking blinkered, DANGEROUS, racist, religionist and ignorant views, and the implications and accusations that you put with them and go sit with the fucking dunce in the corner.
What's dangerous is anyone's RELIGION being more important than how they deal with people. Christians - if you generalise over history - forcibly colonised most of the world to "convert" people. It's the conversion that's the problem, not the particular religion they choose to convert you to.
Stop being a cock.
Right. And I'll add that most victims of Islamic terrorist are muslims who live in muslim countries.
The paranoia over this in the west would be laughable if it were not such a distraction from the real issues.
Can you imagine the backlash if Clinton, Obama, Trump and Bush were on that list?
Islamic state has promised 1 year of free credit monitoring to the
affect terrorists, unless they blow themselves up prematurely...
CAP == 'whispers'
Because it is complex. More complex than AlphaGo. Combination of culture, religion, values, politics, wellbeing etc. There are sane muslims who see the word "Jihad" as internal struggle while others see it as suicide attacks. The violent people don't see it as "suicide" (which is bad and punishable in their culture) but as "jihad" because they have this mindset of massive rewards in their paradise.
If the holy book says you will be rewarded for violent acts then the possibility of suicide attacks is higher if the "earthly" life is not fulfilling in the materialistic sense. But that still requires fundamentalist attitude combined with strong sense of oppression, possibly exacerbated by social exclusion.
Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe.
The EuroStat statistics are horribly misleading. From the 2015 report (PDF).
On page 8 (emphasis mine):
Type of terrorism
As in previous years, separatist terrorism continued to be the dominant type of terrorism in court proceedings in 2014. The vast majority of separatist terrorism verdicts (92%) were pronounced in Spain. Courts in Denmark, France, Lithuania and Germany also issued verdicts in relation to separatist terrorism.
And on page 4 it says:
In Spain, reported terrorist attacks continued to decrease from 54 in 2012, to 33 in 2013, to 18 in 2014. In both countries, all attacks, except one that happened in Spain, were classified as separatist. The attacks in Spain did not cause casualties.
In fact, ETA hasn't killed anyone since their ceasefire in 2010, which they later amended to be permanent so that's over 100 terror "attacks" without loss of life as far as I can tell. Meanwhile a single islamist attack in Paris cost 130 lives with zero convictions because they're dead. No wonder they don't show up in arrest statistics.
The higher you set the threshold, the more obvious the relation gets. If you look at terrorist attacks that have killed more than 10 people in the EU since 2000 that list is presumably quite complete and it's as follows:
2004: Madrid train bombings, 191 dead - islamists
2005: London subway bombings, 52 dead - islamists
2015: Charlie Hebdo attack, 18 dead - islamists
2015: Paris attacks, 130 dead - islamists
Are you starting to see a pattern? Feel free to make the same list for the US.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...whistleblowing is still bad, right?
Christians used to be just as oppressive, so the religion does have the capability if circumstances are suited.
Perhaps Islam is not a unified religion, and different regions may have very different forms of Islam even if they share the same holy text?
Islam is in many so called "poor" countries (check the map where Islam is in use). There are other problems than religions. I would say improve the infrastructures and predictability of live in general and you will see more abstract and ethical versions of Islam, not the literalist style as we often now see.
Yes, yes, we get it, Christianity only crusades a little bit so it's OK.
I'm too. Watch your back.
I get that this makes for a great news story and generates a lot of traffic for Sky.
On the other hand, wouldn't it have been a good idea to first give that list to government officials and let them muck around with it for a couple of years, instead of alerting the ISIS members that their cover was blown?
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
The last Crusade ended over 500 years ago.
Imagine this published in the Internet. Let popular justice take its course.
"Islamists are responsible for about 5% of terror attacks in the US and 2% in Europe."
I'd love to see the definition of terror attack that was used here. Does it include sticking your head through an open window and shouting: boo??
Christians flew planes into buildings killing thousands of innocents in a single attack? I must have missed a week of news.
Oh, you are saying they USED to be as bad. Well, the DNC is the party that fought tooth and nail to keep slavery, fought against the Civil Rights Act, and took back in 49 of the 53 Dixicrats that wanted to keep blacks suppressed. In fact they also had a former KKK leader as a top official. Oh, wait, that was only a couple decades ago and doesn't matter, what matters is what happened over 1000 years ago.
We need our five minutes of hate.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
you set-up leftists vs islamists here, right? that's pretty bogus already, but just below that you fail to see how christians and jews are and have done far more invading and oppressing of people than islam ever has.
if western civ .. by which you might mean 'current american foreign policy drives and motivations' was not pushing people into radicalism, then financing them to form factions acting as justification to invade otherwise sov nations, there would not be 'terror'. we'd just have the occassional 'lone gunmen' as in 'the good old times'.
what a joke.
On the one hand, the "religion of peace" is a self-applied phrase. Religious practitioners commonly accept direct contradictions as true, and perform amazing feats of mental gymnastics to rectify the two. One good example of this is Christians believing that Jesus died to bring forgiveness to all believers, but just a bit later Ananias and his wife were not forgiven even though they believed and joined the church. They were, in fact, given the death sentence for lying about what their property was worth (and keeping some money for themselves rather than giving all of it to the church). Sounds like quite a bait-and-switch if you ask me!
On the other hand, extreme Islam represents a small percentage of total Islam. They get all the media attention because they are murdering people. All the Muslims who reject ISIS as evil, and who conduct their lives in civil fashion (don't murder people and never will), don't get any media attention because they are boring. So, our perception of the religion is very skewed by this.
Actually, the USA seems to go really far out of its way not to ignore the criminality of blacks, in comparison to its willingness to ignore the criminality of whites.
For example, despite similar rates of use of marijuana, blacks are arrested more often for marijuana use.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
This article in Huffington post claims that we enthusiastically prosecute Blacks for the same crimes that we ignore in whites, and that blacks commit no more crimes than whites:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
I am not black so I don't know the black experience, but this sure seems like systematic injustice to blacks to me. Also, it seems to me that it's demonstrably false that blacks can be fairly characterized as "rampantly criminal" as you said. Instead it seems that perception of blacks as rampantly criminal is flatly racial bias if not outright racism.
--PeterM
The last Crusade ended over 500 years ago.
And it was in response to Islamic Imperialism.
Try wearing a Buddha tattoo in Sri Lanka and see how peaceful they are.
Because back in 2013 we were told that ISIS was a Junior Varsity basketball team, nothing to fear.
I think it's more likely that the baker is just a bigot and using religion to justify it. There are a lot of things proscribed in Leviticus (20:13, where the main justification for bigotry against gays comes from, which actually only mentions gay men, no mention of gay women). Believers are told to kill all of the following in that book: blasphemers, adulterers, women sorcerers, children that dishonor their parents, people who work on the Sabbath, women who have sex before marriage, and as mentioned above gay men.
So for shop owners who try to claim not serving LGBT customers is protected religious behavior rather than just plain bigotry, they would then have to refuse to serve adulterers, rude children, and the rest from the list above. But they don't do that, which just proves their bigotry.
Shit, all vegetarians need to be arrested / exterminated, no?
There are no vegetarians, only meatless people with crazy new-age beliefs that happily eat mushrooms (not a veggie sorry) and bacteria derived vitamins (not veggies also sorry).
You say we shouldn't make a fuss about religion but yet you refer to the brainless idiots by their religion.
100's of million $'s in ordinance and kill two of them and half a million civilians.
All businesses benefit from the tax payer funded courts for dispute resolution and contract enforcement. Tax payer funded regulations that allow the small baker level playing field against the bankers. That baker is taking advantage of taxpayer funded infrastructure to deliver goods to him and the customers to him. Business is secular, mundane. It is a perfectly legitimate function of the government to level the playing field to give small isolated groups some standing to deal with bigger players. The same laws that force the baker to serve a gay couple forces the banks from colluding against small business. At least they should, if we have legislators with two molecules of common sense, one molecule of courage and trace amounts patriotism.
All your private religious beliefs can be used in your private life. You can choose not to buy from a gay baker or not to watch gay newscasters, not donate to charities that support gays. But any dealing with the public, is subject to review and regulation. And that baker bakes for all or finds a different job.
If Islamic leaders had this vision, and the Islamic leaders over the years sold this idea to their flock, and if the Islamic people had agreed with this strong separation of State and Church, they would not be in such dire situation today. The main problem is that the internal conflict resolution mechanism within Islam is broken. The moderates who oppose violence, the intellectuals who should oppose it, all flee Islam controlled societies, take refuge in other places. The evaporation and emigration of the moderate elites is concentrating the power in the hands of the hardliners. And rabble rousers take control of the religion and the message. The moderates are finding it very difficult to fight them in the mindspace in Islamic countries. There are lots of these moderates trying very hard to do it. But their progress is slow, and almost completely invisible to the Western media.
It is a complex problem but that built up over centuries. It will take centuries to de-escalate and come back to normalcy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
no dipshit. they killed hundreds of thousands over many years of oppression.
ISIS have problems with foreign fighters getting disillusioned, defecting, going home.
All those contemplating that now know for certain their government knows about them, and that they're likely to face serious jail time on their return. It might encourage them to stay put.
That's a good reason for leaking this deliberately.
I didn't RTFA article but I cannot see why /. used the humor graphic.
mfwright@batnet.com
That would be hilarious! Maybe it's a list of Catholic priests.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How about the attacks against the migrants? Why aren't they called terror attacks? After all the whole point of them is to terrorize them into going away. Migrants have been killed. Muslims haven't been the cause of those attacks and not all of the migrants are Muslims.
that guy made up his own religion though, with himself as the focus. No denomination of Christianity is going to claim him Very different from Islam and the at least 30% who think various violent acts by terrorists are righteous and who make contributions to such causes in the marketplaces as part of daily life
if enough people wanted sharia
It's called democracy.
This.
Religion is the excuse, not the cause.
It doesn't matter if someone blows up a bus in the name of god or the name of the teletubbies. People who are misguided enough to think that it's the religion that is inherently flawed are making the situation worse. Much much worse than it has to be.
Every religion has been used to justify horrible acts in the past. Normally they were just used as an excuse to motivate the peasantry into fighting a war far from home that they really didn't want to. Would farmers and labourers really have picked up sticks and invaded the middle east seven times because their leaders wanted to control the trade there (making themselves even richer in the process). Fuck no, as Napoleon said "a man does not get himself killed for a half pence a day or a petty distinction, you must speak to the soul to electrify him". By the same token I have no doubt that those who are pushing terrorism are only using religion as a motivational force and have have something personal to gain (the usual I'd bet, money, land and power).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals
I guess cigarettes don't cause cancer either since not everyone who smokes becomes a victim of cancer. Great logic skills you got there.
ISIS IS US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror
by Washington's Blog et al.
Link: http://amzn.com/B019RXBP7M
FBI crime statistics say otherwise. Blacks commit violent crimes in numbers that far exceed their rate in the population, and no amount of racial bias can explain the deviation, either, especially since a lot of the victims are black, too.
Your claim was that 2% of terrorism (not any arbitrarily defined subset thereof) in Europe is down to islamists.
Where's the other 98%?
I think if the People's Popular Front of East Grinstead had carried out an attack 49 times the size of the Charlie Hebdo attack it might have made the news.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://media.kmspks.org/uncate...
“If one knows how to treasure oneself, one should protect oneself well.”
-The Buddha (Dhammapada)
Secondly, by theory of original Buddhism (Theravada), there is no 'God', of course no 'Saint', you are by what you have done (karma). By that logic, even if one promotes you 'martyr' is nothing, no matter if you kill yourself or kill others.
Those immolated-monks, may be hundreds, but they are no 'Saint', or 'Martyr', they chose this way themselves, "when one’s karmic retribution is not exhausted, death by suicide only leads to another cycle of rebirth"
Violence is always rationalized one way or another.
To members of ISIS their violence is as rational as those Buddhist monks killing off civilians of particular ethnicities (the term for this is "Genocide").
The problem here is fanaticism and sectarianism. Recent political events in the US show that it would easily happen here as well if the people could get away with it (just like it did during the "lynching" era).
From published figures on wikipedia, Islamists are responsible for 81% of EU terrorist fatalities since 2001 (approx 600 total). The remainder are approx equally divided between far left, far right, separatists and unknown loon attacks/some possibly accidents. If you remove the latter category and use named groups or published manifestos as the demarker of terrorists, then islamists are responsible 85% of deaths. This is NOT THE SAME as the number of arrests or attacks. Although there are much more than 20% of attackers and groups from the other categories, they are much less lethal than the Islamists. E.g. there are a large number of animal rights attackers and groups, but they tend to avoid killing people, so I would argue they are a less serious threat.
If you look at the really dangerous terror groups, who cause fatalities, the islamists are causing >81% of deaths, so it seems like there is a pretty serious issue with this group. Also note that we are looking at the EU, if you include the middle east, Islamists get orders of magnitude more dangerous.
In the EU over the past 15 years you had a 10^-7 chance of being killed by a terrorist per year, I'd put that at a pretty low probability, so maybe we should concentrate less of terrorist risk than we have been doing. HOWEVER if you look at say Syria, then the risk of death in an ISIS held area might be 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater, so ISIS are a serious risk in the area they control (and the same goes for other Islamist groups, and arguably the Islamist government of Saudi Arabia, but that's another matter entirely lol).
All strict ideologies are bigoted and therefore a source of conflict rather than peace.
Because reality is never that much fun/interesting?
Funny how I'm a troll because people can't handle the facts. Only 3000 people died from 9/11. Over 100,000 people died because of the invasion. Let's start with that.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Exactly. And if we can't fix democracy to guard against individual liberties being violated (i.e. being voted out), then all we can do is stop importing people who who vote or fight against said liberties.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Compare the casualties of terrorism in London, Madrid and Paris against, say, the daily death toll in traffic. Yes, terrorism exists in Europe, and we should continue to fight it as best we can, but in the grand scheme of things it is not a problem that should dominate our lives and make us throw away liberties such as the right to keep certain things private, nor throw away the rights of individual well-meaning Muslims.
Europe has its share of problems, but terrorism isn't a major one. Really, it isn't. Don't let the extremists or your elected or appointed representatives scare you into thinking otherwise.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The problem here is fanaticism and sectarianism. Recent political events in the US show that it would easily happen here as well if the people could get away with it (just like it did during the "lynching" era).
Reminder: Lynching is what white people do to white people when there are disputes over taxes. And more white people were lynched during the american revolution then were during the strong era of the KKK.
Om, nomnomnom...
And I consider myself a very liberal minded person who thinks Western nations have a responsibility to take in all the refugees caused by the post 9/11 Middle East adventure.
So does that mean muslims nations are required to take responsibility for the ~700 years of attacks against European nations? Including the mass rapes, slaughter of civilians and destruction of churches or other cultural locations.
Om, nomnomnom...
Do you really not know the word `think'? Gah.
How about attacks by those economic migrants? You know, like when they rioted and put several dozen civilians and police officers in hospital when they tried to take over a ferry.
Om, nomnomnom...
Where? When? What were they oppressing? Did this oppression and its ireful targets arise out of Christianity, the native population, another historical train of thought or culture, political figures, gross nationalism (when nations were specific groups of people), the holy texts (for them) themselves...?
I ask because I rarely, ever, hear such facts in connections with claims like this.
No, because the conflict is not ongoing anymore.
Seriously, can someone come up with something that is not strawman argument?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
He calls himself christian, and I don't see any christian leader to step up and tell the world that Joseph Kony is not a christian, and that they denounce his claim to Christianity. But the same is routinely asked from the muslim world if someone who claims himself to be muslim commits an act of deadly violence.
You also don't see any Christian leaders standing up and cheering him on or justifying his actions. The same cannot be said for Muslim terrorist.
You do however see Christian followers denouncing kony's actions very loudly which you do not see much with Muslims.
You're confusing religion with race. Indonesians aren't sandniggers, so their version of Islam works better. Not good, though.
Out of whose cultural-marxist ass did you pull those numbers? (Translation: citation needed.)
First, the IRA didn't bomb the Brits to oblivion.
Second, the IRA wasn't a religious movement, so don't use them to apologize for muslims.
Third, yes, not all negro or arab muslims are muredrous swine, but then again, 20% are. Bears eat once every few days, so why don't you go lock yourself in a room with one, hoping its not hungry. I'd rather not have them here.
Fourth, stop blaming whites for the woes of the world. We're the ones that brought the world out of the middle ages.
I could keep going, but I'll never convince you, as you are a brainwashed cultural-marxist twat.
Did you just try to explain why it's fine to discriminate by discriminating? Bizarre.
Because terrorism is a motive and not an action. If you don't figure that out, your confusion will continue. When people burn down an immigration home they are engaging in terrorism, as they are using terror to coerce political will. In the case of storming a ferry, they are simply trying to storm a ferry - their actions were not designed or intended to carry further than that. This stuff really isn't difficult to figure out, provided one has the will.
The number of casualties from terrorism in Europe is tiny. Really, really small. Even including the attack you mention, it's still minuscule. Getting scared over a statistical blip and then using that fear to condemn over a billion people with a crude, childish, scared judgement is pathetic.
Probably more that we should use our brains instead of leaping to inane conclusions based on prejudice. The best tool to fix whatever ills are present in Islam is moderate Muslims. This pathetic ranting against Islam is pushing those people further and further away. It's precisely because the world has seen what happens when this irrational reaction is allowed or even encouraged that we should strive to not repeat the mistakes of the past. To just wave one's hands in the air and equate Islam with terrorism is ensuring we make these same mistakes again and again and again.
Yes, it's easy to pin the blame on Islam, but it's logically bankrupt and inherently dangerous to do so.
Islamist != Muslim. You conflating the two (whether accidentally through ignorance or on purpose) is a rather large red flag that you might not know what you're talking about. Also you forgetting the rampant violence carried out in Christianity's name (but not condemning Christianity) reeks of a double standard. I get it - you aren't particularly knowledgeable about this - but don't try to fix your ignorance by drowning it in hate. The future won't thank you.
https://www.google.com/search?...
A Muslim is a practitioner of Islam. Islamist is akin to talking about a Christian doing something.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
However there were Christian activists who did kill people over abortion.
Is it wrong for the state to put a serial murderer to death? This is what Christians believe abortion doctors are, yet rarely are there cases of violence against them.
Don't forget larger scale violence using religion as the excuse; Irish separatists in Northern Ireland
I don't recall the Irish Catholics having issues with England because they were protestant, I think it might have had more to do with oppression...but I could be wrong...
the crusades,
You mean the war started by Muslims invading Spain?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Muslims also drink water. The fact that I also drink water does not make me a terrorist.
he also made the leap from Muslim to terrorism
In the first quote you literally equated the word "Muslim" to the word "terrorist", so maybe you are protesting a bit too loudly.
This is material support for a terrorist organization.
Some rabid american might be coming for you.
even many moderate muslims who wouldn't dream of stooping to violence themselves would vote for sharia law if it was brought to a vote
Guess what, the gay marriage bans in the US weren't legislated by Muslims. The legislation requiring teaching Creationism in some US states wasn't created by Muslims either. I bet a lot of religious people supported those laws.
Whether or not you're in the US, I frankly call bullshit that you don't have non-muslim people in your country trying to enshrine their own morals in law. Either that stuff gets laughed out of the building (one can only hope), gets voted down later, or you don't think about it because you personally agree with it. The fact that some Muslims might support laws that prop up their religion is completely irrelevant, because it's not a problem specific to Muslims.
Mmk I apologize a bit for that post. I think you were actually making the general religious argument but using Islam as the particular religion in your example.
Where the hell did you dig out that bs stat from? Your own ass? Holy cow!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2016
Which separatists and extreme left groups? I don't think i read the same page you did.
Who considers Islam a religion of peace? Lots of religious groups like to call themselves things I disagree with. Ideally, Islam is a religion of peace, but it doesn't seem to do very well at it nowadays. (This is not always the case historically, since there were times when the Muslims were among the most tolerant people on Earth.)
I keep seeing denunciations of Islam everywhere I go. I'm not real fond of the religion (it's my least favorite of the major ones), but it seems to be one of those things that people just have difficulty being rational about. If you want to claim about Islam getting a free pass, you need to say who's giving it a free pass and then we can discuss things.
As far as the outrage about the Christian-owned bakery...that was deliberately fomented by the bakery owners, who organized a harassment campaign against the couple who merely filed a report with the appropriate authorities. If you heard anything about them having to pay a lot of money, it was in response to the harassment. Most of the stuff you read on the subject was spin.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As it happens, Islam has no divisions, as a matter of doctrine. (It's likely to be in the Koran somewhere.) This makes it really awkward for Muslims to address problems with other branches of Islam.
Also, in different countries, various traditional customers are mixed into Islam without scruples, much like some modern Christians wonder how Christians can vote Democrat. A guy I know said he never realized what Islam really was before he moved from Pakistan to the US.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So why doesn't Indonesia have Sharia law yet? The country is 80% Muslim yet the democratically elected party in power cracks down as hard as it can on Islamic terrorists.
Doesn't it though? Just because it isn't the de jure law doesn't mean it's not the de facto law. I personally know a family from Indonesia (father was Filipino, mother was Malay, they met in Indonesia when pursuing advanced degrees and their children were born there) who had to flee the country in the middle of the night, leaving their entire lives behind, just because they were Christians. They received advance warning that the dad's Christian colleagues who hadn't fled were being systematically butchered and that the jihadists were nearing their location. They made it to America, where they were able to get plugged into local Indonesian communities, largely made up of people who had similar stories to share.
Maybe the government really does "crack down as hard as it can", but if the government is ineffective at its job, then it really doesn't matter what a piece of paper says the law is. What matters is how things actually are.
Terrorism has been a problem a lot longer in Europe and US. Remember particular incident starting the WW1, or the same people who assassinated the US president little earlier, which happened after the same people assassinated the king of Italy?
not a problem that should dominate our lives and make us throw away liberties such as the right to keep certain things private, nor throw away the rights of individual well-meaning Muslims.
Media and populist politicians push it into our lives, while the intelligence and police organizations both sides of the Atlantic are trying gain additional capabilities. Well-meaning Muslims are in the cross-fire from the fanatics, populists, racists, and ideologies such as the authoritarian "state secularism" which is the French way of compromise. The US pursuit of happiness is a milder form of the same. The power of words is such that the issue what is talked about becomes the issue. Fighting against this corrosive tide requires a massive effort as it means going against the views of the media, the politicians, the security officials -- against the whole international community.
And so if we do have this "highly confidential " information....then what? Are we going to act upon it? That's the question.