Tube stabbing 'terrorist incident'

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: uncommitted

No, the 'terrorist symapathiser' comment was against parts of the shadow cabinet - Corbyn has spoken of 'our friends in Hezbollah', John McDonnel has talked about the 'bravery' of the IRA (and actually called for them to be honoured), Livingstone talked only a couple of weeks ago on the BBC TV show question time about the 'sacrifices' suicide bombers had made - that's three examples I'm aware of but I doubt they are the only ones. That certainly suggests sympathy, if not empathy with terrorists - it was left to others to claim he was referring to anyone who was against any action.

Does that apply to members of his own party who have close links with Ulster loyalists? Members of his own government who armed Syrian and Libyan opposition groups without asking too many questions? Members of Tory youth groups in the 1980s who supported direct action by right wing South African groups?

Bottom line: Cameron has a great line in saloon bar banter but, ultimately, he's a lying sack of sh*t.

Well, he's not lying when he used specific remarks that ring true for members of the shadow cabinet - would you agree? As for the others you note (not by name or specific action though) I couldn't tell you, I was commenting on a specific point.

AS far as this episode, well had he had an illegal gun it would have been lights out for the Cops and possibly many more civilian deaths to boot.

It is the weapon that causes injury and death, not the insane person right?

The media seems to report crime when it helps the agenda. Crime happens 24/7/365. That is the norm.

The definition of terrorosm in the oxford english dictionary.

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:

so again I think this is terrorism as the person commiting it had a political ideology they believe in. The difference between this and a random nutty person is that you know multiple people have this ideology and will also see it as authorisation to act....which leaves people intimidated and in fear, which is the purpose of terrorism.

and the qualifier of saying the first incident was one crazy guy so it wouldn't count as terrorism can no longer be used, especially as all Isis murders are crazy anyway..

we have another one! Man stabbed to death in Oxfordshire

( I'm editing to add I read the article wrong, this bloke did NOT shout anything about Syria and it is not thought to be terrorist related, I fell for the hype, Ignore the above, I apologise )

You're right. An opinion is not a fact, therefore you cannot lie when expressing an opinion.

Let me rephrase. Cameron is a disingenuous, cynical sack of sh*t with great appeal to people who don't think too much.

As for the Tories.,....you can have Jim Nicholson's links to the UDA, William Hague's policy on Syria and Libya 2010-5 and David Cameron in the Federation of Conservative Students.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese


Cameron is a disingenuous, cynical sack of sh*t with great appeal to people who don't think too much.

Absolutely hence the moronic "#youaintnomuslimbruv" that's being spouted by all and sundry as though it's going to make things better - politicians in the US got slated for offering prayers - our PM comes out with that pile of horse manure.

It's just all about making out that muslims are great and it's just a small number who have been "radicalized" who do bad things.

Is it really the case that people can't remember that until the muslim terror floodgates opened the idea of "radicalization" didn't exist.

Radicalization is pure propaganda - you're even at it in the states.

Western people just don't seem to want to believe that someone would happily kill other people for having different religious beliefs - but sadly there are many of them who think in exactly this way - 25% of the muslims already in the USA apparently believe it.

They aren't "radicalized" they're normalized.

And without getting into guns, you lot over there had better batten down the hatches, because it is a FACT that guns are easier to get hold of in the states than the UK, so you won't be having some nutter attacking the tube trains with a knife, they'll have an automatic rifle and it'll be carnage - over and over and over again.

a reply to: Power_Semi

So they are pointing out the truth...Most Muslims are alright here in the UK.
I live near Bradford.
Wow you are a fearmonger keep spreading the fear do ISIS work for them.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Power_Semi

So they are pointing out the truth...Most Muslims are alright here in the UK.
I live near Bradford.
Wow you are a fearmonger keep spreading the fear do ISIS work for them.

I live near Bradford too - small world.

The problem is you don't know who is alright and who isn't, so you either remove all of them and get rid of the problem, or none of them and accept that people are going to be murdered.

It all boils down to whose rights do you want to protect - the group with the aggressors, or the group who are the victims?

a reply to: Power_Semi

Well it is a good job we didn't do that when we had troubles with the IRA.
Did you want to throw out all Irish and ginger people?.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Power_Semi

Well it is a good job we didn't do that when we had troubles with the IRA.
Did you want to throw out all Irish and ginger people?.

It might not have been a bad idea - "it's a good job we didn't do that" - why?

So they could keep on bombing shopping malls and city centers?

What was so good about it, and allowing them to do it?

Or do you think the rights of those who lost their lives were less important than the rights of a few people to live where they want?

lives vs wants - you think the wants of some people are more important than the lives of other people?

a reply to: Power_Semi

They were catholic also I think we should have shipped out all the Catholics also......
Same thing dude.
I don't think I have ever talked to someone who is so afraid and willing to go to great lengths to give themselves the illusion of being safe.
If we shipped out the Irish it would have been far worse for the UK and If we shipped out all the Muslims it would be far worse to us as a measure of our society and what we stand up for.
Oh and don't give me all that about do I want lives saved or not.
I knew Tim Parry as a Kid and they did not scare me then and the new lot of idiotic terrorists do not scare me now.
To lump every Muslim in the same boat is stupid and ignorant.
Heck I thought we were better then Donald Trump style politics here in the UK...

originally posted by: Power_Semi
Is it really the case that people can't remember that until the muslim terror floodgates opened the idea of "radicalization" didn't exist.

Radicalization is pure propaganda - you're even at it in the states.

If radicalization is pure propaganda, what's the difference between today's situation and the situation 30 years ago?

What changed?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

Let me rephrase. Cameron is a disingenuous, cynical sack of sh*t with great appeal to people who don't think too much.

I could swear you mean Corbyn, but that would be assuming the swathe of new supporters he garnered actually thought at all wouldn't it.

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Power_Semi

Well it is a good job we didn't do that when we had troubles with the IRA.
Did you want to throw out all Irish and ginger people?.

It might not have been a bad idea - "it's a good job we didn't do that" - why?

So they could keep on bombing shopping malls and city centers?

What was so good about it, and allowing them to do it?

Or do you think the rights of those who lost their lives were less important than the rights of a few people to live where they want?

lives vs wants - you think the wants of some people are more important than the lives of other people?

So what do you think should have been done then - kick out all Catholics and Irish? Why stop there, why not also Christians? Would be interesting hear you in a conversation with Trump, you would almost make him seem intelligent.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Power_Semi

Well it is a good job we didn't do that when we had troubles with the IRA.
Did you want to throw out all Irish and ginger people?.

It might not have been a bad idea - "it's a good job we didn't do that" - why?

So they could keep on bombing shopping malls and city centers?

What was so good about it, and allowing them to do it?

Or do you think the rights of those who lost their lives were less important than the rights of a few people to live where they want?

lives vs wants - you think the wants of some people are more important than the lives of other people?

So what do you think should have been done then - kick out all Catholics and Irish? Why stop there, why not also Christians? Would be interesting hear you in a conversation with Trump, you would almost make him seem intelligent.

No,and this is where you and the other guy are blowing smoke up your asses.

The IRA were NOT fighting for catholicism against other forms of religion, they were fighting for a "free" Ireland.

The muslims are fighting for Islam against all other forms of religion.

So, if you had wanted to stop all IRA bombings in the UK then you could have deported all Irish people - may not be fair to the ones who aren't bombing, but it would have been fair to all of the people who were the victims.

You might say that not all muslims are terrorists, but right now all terrorists are muslims - so if you want to get rid of all of the terrorists, get rid of all of the muslims.

Again, you might say it's unfair to the "good" ones, but when 25%+ support Jihad and violence against the West, then it's impossible to fins an equitable solution that is fair to everyone.

You are either fair to one side - the one that contains the aggressors, and therefore accept that the attrocities will continue, or you favour the side of the victims and look after their rights.

You can't do both - so do you pick the side of the man who will cut your head off for being different, or the tolerant idiot who wants the man who wants to cut your head off to be allowed to live next door to you.

Personally I think you should all feck off with them back to their lands, you'll see how far your "tolerance" gets you then, but in the interim - get rid of the section of the community that brings the violence.

It is pure logic, not emotional or about being politically correct - if something is causing a problem get rid of it - it is simple in these terms and is the right thing to do.

We've tried 20+ years of allowing everyman and his dog to come here and bent over backwards for them, and this is where it has got us.

Doing more of the same, or bending over further will not make the situation better, it will continue to decline.

I propose that a 180 degree u-turn and a completely opposing policy will resolve the situation within months - it might be unfair to all of those people who have made a life here living off benefits and other peoples taxes, but it will be infinitely fairer to the people who are going to be murdered by these morons.

Go with them - you'll love it over there.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Power_Semi
Is it really the case that people can't remember that until the muslim terror floodgates opened the idea of "radicalization" didn't exist.

Radicalization is pure propaganda - you're even at it in the states.

If radicalization is pure propaganda, what's the difference between today's situation and the situation 30 years ago?

What changed?

30 years ago - what?

What are you talking about?

in the past a terrorist supported a cause and was a terrorist.

Today, a mulim who commits attrocities has been "radicalized" - i.e. the implication is, all muslims are good (despite 25%+ wanting to kill you), but some of them have been "turned to the dark side" by "nasty people" and if it wasn't for those "nasty people" then they wouldn't have done it.

Let me give you a simple explanation of why this is bullcrap.

People who BELIEVE in something - the Bible, the koran, Fairies, Orbs being ghosts, the afterlife - whatever - absorb that belief into their internal representation of who they are, how the world works, and how they fit into it.

You CANNOT change those beliefs.

Alternatively, if I said to you "hey did you know mount Everest is 1000 ft high" and you said "don't be daft, it's 8.8 KM high" I'd think - "oh, I got that wrong" and change that FACT in my head. No struggle, no problem.

You CANNOT do this with beliefs.

Say to someone that their God isn't real, or orbs aren't ghosts, or there is no afterlife, or UFO's, or ANYTHING else - even gun rights in the USA - and you're in for violence and trouble.

So..... If you are the kind of guy who doesn't believe in killing dozens of people, then it doesn't matter what Bible verses I read to you, what newspaper clippings I show you, what claims I make - I CANNOT radicalize you into going and killing a load of people in the name of anything.

Can you imagine anything I could say to you that would make you go and kill other people?

No?

Then how the feck are we supposed to swallow the notion that these people were good people, just like you, but then they read something on the internet, or someone said something to them, and hey presto they became killing machines who suddenly hated the West.

The underlying belief HAS to be there in the first place, and THAT is what Islam indoctrinates into them from childhood.

THAT is why the idiotic bullcrap of "radicalization" is nonsense.

a reply to: Power_Semi

Your rhetoric seems to suggest that 'English people' suddenly sprang up from nowhere and anyone else is somehow bad. Ok Alf, well done, not a debate I will get into with someone like you.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Power_Semi

Your rhetoric seems to suggest that 'English people' suddenly sprang up from nowhere and anyone else is somehow bad. Ok Alf, well done, not a debate I will get into with someone like you.

Sorry,
that's nonsense - the UK has a society of people that has been built over generations and Centuries - you're trying to belittle that by making out we can import multiple different cultures, faiths, and beliefs all into the country within 10 years or less, and that it won't make a difference because we are a "mongrel race" - that is more offensive than the argument you claim to be trying to counter.

But you aren't trying to counter it, you're trying to turn it into "ooh I'm calling you a racist, so you've automatically lost" - sorry but that crap doesn't wash anymore.

You're full of # and everyone can see it - even you I suspect - calling people names doesn't work any more, you need facts and evidence and you, unlike me, have neither.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Power_Semi

Your rhetoric seems to suggest that 'English people' suddenly sprang up from nowhere and anyone else is somehow bad. Ok Alf, well done, not a debate I will get into with someone like you.

Try answering my 2 posts before yours and answering them or dissecting them instead of talking about "rhetoric" calling me "Alf" (in reference to Alf Garnett no doubt), and talking about "people like you" - YOU are a propagandist - are you paid by the gub'ment to post this crap?

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Power_Semi

Your rhetoric seems to suggest that 'English people' suddenly sprang up from nowhere and anyone else is somehow bad. Ok Alf, well done, not a debate I will get into with someone like you.

Try answering my 2 posts before yours and answering them or dissecting them instead of talking about "rhetoric" calling me "Alf" (in reference to Alf Garnett no doubt), and talking about "people like you" - YOU are a propagandist - are you paid by the gub'ment to post this crap?

Nope, just referring to your ridiculous comments that all Irish + all Catholics should be kicked out based on the actions of the IRA, you come across as Colonel Blimp writing to the Evening Telegraph and signing it 'Yours. the seriously frustrated person somewhere near Bradford"

As I'm half Irish and Catholic and have no reason to believe bombs or bullets are the answer, your strange xenophobia isn't my problem to deal with.

originally posted by: Power_Semi
People who BELIEVE in something - the Bible, the koran, Fairies, Orbs being ghosts, the afterlife - whatever - absorb that belief into their internal representation of who they are, how the world works, and how they fit into it.

You CANNOT change those beliefs.

There are many cases of people changing from one religion to another, doesn't that mean that they changed their beliefs?

Can you imagine anything I could say to you that would make you go and kill other people?

Saying, no, doing, yes.

If you did something that made me think that the best option to protect those I love would be to kill, I could change my mind.

But I was never easily convinced by publicity.

The underlying belief HAS to be there in the first place, and THAT is what Islam indoctrinates into them from childhood.

I disagree, like I said above, people change when they perceive that the world around them also changed. Do you think that all the people that fought on WWII were born with the will to kill other people?