Suspected Terror Attack in Manchester England

Greater Manchester police have just given a news conference where they confirmed they are treating the incident as a terror related attack.

originally posted by: gortex
Greater Manchester police have just given a news conference where they confirmed they are treating the incident as a terror related attack.

What does that even mean these days though? A crazy guy who has chatted to other crazy guys on the internet, or an organised group?
Terror attack seems to me to be just a scary word to frighten us. There was a crazy guy got tased in town the other week chasing people with a machete, it wasn't a 'terror attack' but I would have been just as scared as if he'd been shouting Allah Akbar or whatever.

'Terror attack' or not, anyone stabbing or hacking at people is just as scary.
I don't get why the cops and media use that term. I understood it for the IRA as an organised group, but for crazy lone wolves with knives not so much.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Actually Muslim gangs are some of the most powerful in country, they have guns and will use them, but they go out of their way not to harm the public. Unlike the fanatic Muslims who have the opposite goal.

a reply to: surfer_soul
Depends where you are in the country.
Local gang families were strong enough down here already, but since the eastern Europeans moved here they have formed working alliances. The Poles are racist as # as it is never mind their thoughts on Islam.
My area will be 99% non Muslim for a long time, and I'm glad about that like most folk in my society.
There will be no Sharia # going on down here.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Not really they are able to travel anywhere and show up in numbers, though it’s true Cornwall’s not really on their radar, they tend to operate only in Muslim community’s and there aren’t any as such down there. We also have plenty of Eastern Europeans in this area too, for the most part they are cool but of course they have their gangs and criminal elements too, what cultures don’t?

Anyway happy new year pal.

a reply to: surfer_soul
It's mad how such a small island is so different in our regions.
Happy new year back as well, look forward to a 2019 of banter and arguments.

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Buzzword technique. Creates heightened fear through connotations manufactured in your own mind and reasserts the strength of the collective enemy, which translates to "be very afraid".

Seems counter-productive in a war against terror, huh?

a reply to: SlowNail

Agreed
You pretty much summed it up.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right to question it. Most don't even notice. They do it all the time to sway public opinion. It's about repetition.

Think 'brexit' 'booms' and 'bubbles'. All designed to make us think or perceive in a certain way.

It applies to law mechanics too, in all the jargonistic legalese terminology designed to confuse the system, leading us to believe that the justice system is inaccessible to the man on the street, so you need to trust an insider to look after you within the system.

I see it as a form of suggestive hypnosis.

You can see that the BBC are using
a Mix of OLD vid clips to show a Story.
BBC vid
look at the very end.
the date in the vid is May 2017 !
Did the BBC add him shouting "ally whop la"
or what ever they shout.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

Probably because he represented Zacarias Moussaoui.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

Anti-gays.
Anti-Jews.
Anti-blacks.
Anti-abortionists.
Anti-muslim.

I guess if you're not one of those you'll be ok. So, carry on.

The gales of tempest logic must not cover broad brushes, eh Bob Ross?

I'm anti-abortion (as it is today). Am I a gun wielding terrorist now?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

Is it not relevant to the Sharia courts that are allowed to exist within London?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

Probably because he represented Zacarias Moussaoui.

He was a human rights lawyer who was defending his client. Someone has to do it, he didn't actually represent him he was a consultant for the defence on the case. I fail to see why this matters?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

Is it not relevant to the Sharia courts that are allowed to exist within London?

Why would the existence of non legal binding courts in the UK (not just London) have anything to do with the religion of the London Mayor?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

Is it not relevant to the Sharia courts that are allowed to exist within London?

Why would the existence of non legal binding courts in the UK (not just London) have anything to do with the religion of the London Mayor?

Because brown face man prays to funny god in strange language....

Interesting update the attacker is being held under the mental health act.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

Is it not relevant to the Sharia courts that are allowed to exist within London?

Why would the existence of non legal binding courts in the UK (not just London) have anything to do with the religion of the London Mayor?

Because brown face man prays to funny god in strange language....

Funny, If I too weren't brown faced and pray to a funny god in a strange language (to them).

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Rewey

Yeah that’s not what he said it was taken out of context he actually said that being prepared for terrorist attacks was part and parcel of city life.

But hey let’s not forget he is a Muslim.....because for some stange reason you feel that matters

I'm perfectly aware of the context of his original comments, but do tell - why would being prepared for terrorist attacks be necessary unless it was an expectation that terrorist attacks would occur? Even worse, it's a statement that he has come to accept terrorist attacks and thinks everyone else should do the same.

And I know you lefty imbeciles can't seem to stomach when people state obvious facts like the fact that Khan is a muslim, but the 'strange reason' that it's relevant is that despite the number of attacks by Islamists in the last 10 years, his comment in no way condemns them, or says that they're unacceptable. It's a tacit suggestion that we just have to get used to it. So yes, it's completely relevant.

Khan has condemned terrorism on numerous occasions. So no the fact he is muslim is in no way relevant, except possibly to bigots.

Is it not relevant to the Sharia courts that are allowed to exist within London?

Why would the existence of non legal binding courts in the UK (not just London) have anything to do with the religion of the London Mayor?

Because brown face man prays to funny god in strange language....

I thought islam was a belief system, not a race or a skin color.

White people are islamic. Asian people are islamic. Black people are islamic. Redheads, blondes, tall people, short people and even SOME middle eastern people are islamic.
In fact, the MAJORITY of muslims on Earth are NOT middle eastern, Arabic nor Persian.

What ‘color’ is a Muslim again?