Incident reported on London Tube train

[CG1 Blue]

14 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

That's truly sad, and very disrespectful towards those children and adults butchered by Irish and any other terrorists.

Only if that's the way you want to read it.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Still not as sick as walking into a music venue full of teenage girls and intentionally killing as many teenage girls as possible. Or running around London Bridge stabbing to death as many innocent men women and children as they could. Or opening fire with a machine gun on a beach full of holiday makers. And in any case, let's move on from what happened 30 years ago.

 

We are dealing with a whole new level of sick b4stards here, and yet some people (perhaps you included) are more concerned about Islamophobia than they are about what is happening.

 

14 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

That's truly sad, and very disrespectful towards those children and adults butchered by Irish and any other terrorists.

Indeed.

 

Blowing up people attending a religious service to remember and honour those who died in two world wars defending our freedom is just as sick.

 

Blowing up children because they were in the company of a member of the Royal Family is just as sick.

 

Yes, peace has come to Northern Ireland; hopefully permanently; but my point being that just as no one blamed all Irish people for the atrocities carried out by Irish terrorists, no one can blame all Muslims carried out by Islamic terrorists.

 

Yes, I am concerned about islamophobia. I am concerned because it is a recruitment tool used by the terrorists! 

 

 

[7by7]

Jipp99, you make very valid points; but

9 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

If a religion of peace cannot control radicalisation of it's followers, then serious questions need to be asked about that religion and whether it has a place in civilised society.

Islam is trying to control this.

 

Muslim soldiers are fighting ISIS and other terrorists on the ground.

 

Muslim political and religious leaders all over the world have repeatedly condemned the activities of Islamic terrorists as unIslamic for decades.

 

Acts of terrorism are also carried out by Christians; from lone wolfs such as Dylann Roof and James Jackson in the USA, to organised groups, such as The Army of God, again in the USA, the Anti-balaka in the central African Republic, the National Liberation Front of Tripura in India, the Lord's resistance Army in Uganda, etc., etc..

 

So the same serious questions need to be asked about Christianity!

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Indeed.

 

Blowing up people attending a religious service to remember and honour those who died in two world wars defending our freedom is just as sick.

 

Blowing up children because they were in the company of a member of the Royal Family is just as sick.

 

Yes, peace has come to Northern Ireland; hopefully permanently; but my point being that just as no one blamed all Irish people for the atrocities carried out by Irish terrorists, no one can blame all Muslims carried out by Islamic terrorists.

 

Yes, I am concerned about islamophobia. I am concerned because it is a recruitment tool used by the terrorists! 

 

 

The terrorists will recruit these losers with or without Islamophobia.

 

To you the most important thing here is protecting the Muslim community against Islamophobia. That is not my priority, so let's agree to disagree.

 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

The terrorists will recruit these losers with or without Islamophobia.

Some; yes.

 

But when a people are persecuted, they react. Some of that reaction will be violent.

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

To you the most important thing here is protecting the Muslim community against Islamophobia. That is not my priority, so let's agree to disagree

One of my priorities is defending innocent people. As said before, whilst the security services estimate that there are 23,000 potential jihadists in the UK, there are also 2.75 million British Muslims who are not; who are innocent, law abiding individuals who are just as much abhorred by the atrocities committed by the terrorists as you and I.

 

Despite the accusations of Laughing Gravy and others, I have never, and never will, make any attempt to defend nor justify the atrocities carried out by terrorists.

 

But I will always defend the rights and freedoms of innocents; whatever their religion.

 

[Jip99]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

J

 

So the same serious questions need to be asked about Christianity!

 

 

I think that was done some time ago.

 

Religion is the root cause of most conflict..... some evil b4stards hide behind that religion and/or cause atrocities in it's name.

 

As I said, IMO no one religion is any better than another if it undertakes indiscriminate killing.

[i claudius]

All i can say is what i have said before after living amongst them and dealing with them in business for almost as long . I know what i think .if its a choice between us and their religion .they will choose us just after pigs make a fly by. Now i dont care what the luvvies tell me .i have seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears. If that makes me an Islamaphobe so be it

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Some; yes.

 

But when a people are persecuted, they react. Some of that reaction will be violent.

One of my priorities is defending innocent people. As said before, whilst the security services estimate that there are 23,000 potential jihadists in the UK, there are also 2.75 million British Muslims who are not; who are innocent, law abiding individuals who are just as much abhorred by the atrocities committed by the terrorists as you and I.

 

Despite the accusations of Laughing Gravy and others, I have never, and never will, make any attempt to defend nor justify the atrocities carried out by terrorists.

 

But I will always defend the rights and freedoms of innocents; whatever their religion.

 

I just find it distasteful when, straight after another attack, some people are more vocal about protecting the feelings of the Muslim community than they are about the disgusting attack that just took place.

[brewsterbudgen]

I just find it distasteful when, straight after another attack, some people are more vocal about protecting the feelings of the Muslim community than they are about the disgusting attack that just took place.

You might want to try reading the whole thread.

[elliss]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:13 AM, Grouse said:

I thought it was a picture of the culprit. ?

No,   it is a picture of the limbs of a victim .

Enjoy your kebab .

Edited September 18, 2017 by elliss

[7by7]

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I just find it distasteful when, straight after another attack, some people are more vocal about protecting the feelings of the Muslim community than they are about the disgusting attack that just took place.

 

Who would that be, then?

 

Whenever such an attack has occurred, I have always condemned it and the perpetrators.

 

Protecting the feelings of the Muslim community? No; simply pointing out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of them are as disgusted and outraged by such atrocities as all others.

 

That and attempting to correct the ignorance displayed by some. Something of an up hill struggle, I admit. I am put in mind of the old adage:

You can lead a horse to water,

But you can't make it drink.

You can lead the ignorant to knowledge,

But you can't make them think.

[nausea]

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

As said before, whilst the security services estimate that there are 23,000 potential jihadists in the UK, there are also 2.75 million British Muslims who are not; who are innocent, law abiding individuals who are just as much abhorred by the atrocities committed by the terrorists as you and I.

 

Please stop quoting this 23,000 figure as though it's written on tablets of stone and handed down from God; and saying that just because someone isn't included on this list they are whiter than snow is dubious logic at best.

 

'BREITBART

"23,000 Jihadists in Britain, Not 3,000 As Previously Claimed
by Jack Montgomery27 May 2017

Government sources have confessed that there are at least 23,000 jihadists in Britain – more than seven times higher than previously revealed.

Until recently, the public had been led to believe there were around 3,000 known jihadists in Britain, with 500 being subject to active investigations led by MI5. Whitehall officials have now disclosed that a further 20,000 individuals have been identified as posing a “residual risk”, according to The Times.'

 

Not exactly confidence inspiring is it. And this is Jihadists they've managed to identify with, I assume, limited resources. Even if they've managed to identify all the people who are active (accessing Jihadist websites or whatever), which I doubt, what about all those who might empathise but aren't stupid enough to raise their heads above the parapet.

 

 

[Opl]

On ‎17‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:28 AM, simple1 said:

So far as I know currently the factual circumstances of the individuals involved with the terror attack at Parson's Green are unknown. HMG passed legislation for a specific issue, unaccompanied asylum seeker children, stuck in countries such as Greece, due to a complete breakdown in orderly processing of claims. The program admitted 350 persons and has now ceased. At the time Europol reported an estimated 10,000 unaccompanied asylum children were missing, one hears no expression of concern from you or others as to what has happened to the missing, likely to be in the hands of organised crime groups, child prostitution, slave workers etc etc.

 

Security agencies in Western countries have made very clear Islamist terror attacks will continue for a number of years. Are you going to spew out bile on social media, contrary to the advise by our security agencies, for years on end?

Contrary to appearances, it is out of love that parents send some of their children to Europe They know that they will benefit from missing structures in their home countries:  shelters, rehab programs, budget for their care...Especially if they do not send money back , these unaccompanied minors will no longer be a burden for their families once in Europe.. most of them are lodged in centers but they do not want to stay there,

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Opl

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.  

[CG1 Blue]

17 hours ago, nausea said:

 

Please stop quoting this 23,000 figure as though it's written on tablets of stone and handed down from God; and saying that just because someone isn't included on this list they are whiter than snow is dubious logic at best.

 

'BREITBART

"23,000 Jihadists in Britain, Not 3,000 As Previously Claimed
by Jack Montgomery27 May 2017

Government sources have confessed that there are at least 23,000 jihadists in Britain – more than seven times higher than previously revealed.

Until recently, the public had been led to believe there were around 3,000 known jihadists in Britain, with 500 being subject to active investigations led by MI5. Whitehall officials have now disclosed that a further 20,000 individuals have been identified as posing a “residual risk”, according to The Times.'

 

Not exactly confidence inspiring is it. And this is Jihadists they've managed to identify with, I assume, limited resources. Even if they've managed to identify all the people who are active (accessing Jihadist websites or whatever), which I doubt, what about all those who might empathise but aren't stupid enough to raise their heads above the parapet.

 

 

You're quoting the wrong person here.  You've quoted a quote!  I'm on your side of this argument.

[nausea]

 

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're quoting the wrong person here.  You've quoted a quote!  I'm on your side of this argument.

Sorry, should've been attributed to 7by7.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, nausea said:

 

Please stop quoting this 23,000 figure as though it's written on tablets of stone and handed down from God; and saying that just because someone isn't included on this list they are whiter than snow is dubious logic at best.

 

'BREITBART

"23,000 Jihadists in Britain, Not 3,000 As Previously Claimed
by Jack Montgomery27 May 2017

Government sources have confessed that there are at least 23,000 jihadists in Britain – more than seven times higher than previously revealed.

Until recently, the public had been led to believe there were around 3,000 known jihadists in Britain, with 500 being subject to active investigations led by MI5. Whitehall officials have now disclosed that a further 20,000 individuals have been identified as posing a “residual risk”, according to The Times.'

 

Not exactly confidence inspiring is it. And this is Jihadists they've managed to identify with, I assume, limited resources. Even if they've managed to identify all the people who are active (accessing Jihadist websites or whatever), which I doubt, what about all those who might empathise but aren't stupid enough to raise their heads above the parapet.

 

 

 Whether the number of potential jihadists in the UK is 1, 1000 or 100,000; it is too many.

 

But it is still a tiny fraction of the Muslim population of the UK; most of whom, as they have repeatedly shown on multitudinous occassions, are as abhorred by the terrorists as the rest of us and do not i any way shape or form support their aims nor methods.

[manarak]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Whether the number of potential jihadists in the UK is 1, 1000 or 100,000; it is too many.

 

But it is still a tiny fraction of the Muslim population of the UK; most of whom, as they have repeatedly shown on multitudinous occassions, are as abhorred by the terrorists as the rest of us and do not i any way shape or form support their aims nor methods.

certainly, but their non-violent supporters (financers, preachers, recruiters...) and other islamist sympathizers (those who would prefer living under Sharia law) have to be included among the group of "problem persons".
potential jihadists are like the visible tip of an iceberg.

Edited September 19, 2017 by manarak

[7by7]

17 hours ago, manarak said:

certainly, but their non-violent supporters (financers, preachers, recruiters...) and other islamist sympathizers (those who would prefer living under Sharia law) have to be included among the group of "problem persons".
potential jihadists are like the visible tip of an iceberg.

So how many of them do you reckon there are, and what facts do you have to back up whatever figure you come up with?

 

[manarak]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

So how many of them do you reckon there are, and what facts do you have to back up whatever figure you come up with?

I'm unable to come up with figures - my point is just that it's wrong to minimize the extent of the problem to a "tiny" group of violent deranged terrorists.

a family where the father is a beard wearer and the mother a burka wearer is openly supporting extremist islamists. people always like to mix up the clothing issue with religion - but nothing in the Quran says that women need to be covered from head to toe.  it's purely an extremist bigot thing, and there lies the largest visible outer limit of islamist support.

it's not unlike neonazis wearing a swastika armband.

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by manarak

[Morch]

@7by7

 

You keep claiming that your posts are fact based, whereas other posters' aren't. That's, as with most of your arguments, only partially correct. What your posts often include are bits, from which you freely extrapolate - sometimes without much to go on.

 

Let's take them supposed 23,000 or so "potential jihadists" (or however one wishes to label them). To begin with, and as sort of pointed out by others, the number is totally dependent on the definition, which makes the whole things rather dodgy without full disclosure of how it is applied and what criteria are considered. Further, and as also been noted, just a while back, reported figures where much lower - so is the massive increase a result of Islamist influx? A change in definitions? A re-evaluation of existing suspects? Or, if one wishes to be cynical an exercise in scaremongering and budget allocation?

 

An accompanying claim is that these 23,000 represent a tiny minority, whereas the 2.75 million UK Muslims are innocent, law abiding and abhor the views of these potential jihadists. Not being a a "potential jihadist" doesn't automatically make a person innocent or law abiding - laying it a bit thick there. Some are, some aren't - just like everyone else. Perhaps the comparison is ought to address no equivalent "tiny minority" among other ethnic or religious groups. No doubt you could cite this or that tidbit, but doubt there's anything quite on par.

 

Most of the claims that the majority of Muslims view things this way or that way do not really based on reliable measures or data. This holds true both for assertions raised by opponents and yourself. Accordingly, there is simply no such overwhelming rejection, certainly not ongoing, of Islamist views such as you often allege. Not in the UK and not internationally - perhaps, other than in countries directly effected (and to a greater extent) by the likes of IS. One thing that causes some confusion on this score is that while many Muslims do reject IS and its ways, they may still embrace versions of Islam which could be considered extreme in their interpretation. Another example would be the often cited "Muslim soldiers" fighting against IS. I don't know that religion is a major component or motivation for these soldiers (for some, certainly), and co-opting them all on the basis of nominal affiliation isn't much of argument.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, manarak said:

certainly, but their non-violent supporters (financers, preachers, recruiters...) and other islamist sympathizers (those who would prefer living under Sharia law) have to be included among the group of "problem persons".
potential jihadists are like the visible tip of an iceberg.

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

So how many of them do you reckon there are, and what facts do you have to back up whatever figure you come up with?

 

 

It would, as posted above, depend on definitions. I think that most intelligence services and police forces treat this as a matter of degree - there's your hardcore, overt support, then sympathizers - expanding circles. Could be more, or less, of them (again, goes back to definitions). These usually bear some relation to legal definitions and provisions.So whether the 23,000 figure refers to the hardcore or includes this or that element is of some importance. Mind, that this comes pretty handy, as it allows some maneuvering room making various claims.

[7by7]

58 minutes ago, manarak said:

I'm unable to come up with figures - my point is just that it's wrong to minimize the extent of the problem to a "tiny" group of violent deranged terrorists.

a family where the father is a beard wearer and the mother a burka wearer is openly supporting extremist islamists. people always like to mix up the clothing issue with religion - but nothing in the Quran says that women need to be covered from head to toe.  it's purely an extremist bigot thing, and there lies the largest visible outer limit of islamist support.

it's not unlike neonazis wearing a swastika armband.

 Total ballocks!

 

Judging people by the way they dress!

[7by7]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

@7by7

 

You keep claiming that your posts are fact based, whereas other posters' aren't. That's, as with most of your arguments, only partially correct. What your posts often include are bits, from which you freely extrapolate - sometimes without much to go on.

 

Let's take them supposed 23,000 or so "potential jihadists" (or however one wishes to label them). To begin with, and as sort of pointed out by others, the number is totally dependent on the definition, which makes the whole things rather dodgy without full disclosure of how it is applied and what criteria are considered. Further, and as also been noted, just a while back, reported figures where much lower - so is the massive increase a result of Islamist influx? A change in definitions? A re-evaluation of existing suspects? Or, if one wishes to be cynical an exercise in scaremongering and budget allocation?

 

An accompanying claim is that these 23,000 represent a tiny minority, whereas the 2.75 million UK Muslims are innocent, law abiding and abhor the views of these potential jihadists. Not being a a "potential jihadist" doesn't automatically make a person innocent or law abiding - laying it a bit thick there. Some are, some aren't - just like everyone else. Perhaps the comparison is ought to address no equivalent "tiny minority" among other ethnic or religious groups. No doubt you could cite this or that tidbit, but doubt there's anything quite on par.

 

Most of the claims that the majority of Muslims view things this way or that way do not really based on reliable measures or data. This holds true both for assertions raised by opponents and yourself. Accordingly, there is simply no such overwhelming rejection, certainly not ongoing, of Islamist views such as you often allege. Not in the UK and not internationally - perhaps, other than in countries directly effected (and to a greater extent) by the likes of IS. One thing that causes some confusion on this score is that while many Muslims do reject IS and its ways, they may still embrace versions of Islam which could be considered extreme in their interpretation. Another example would be the often cited "Muslim soldiers" fighting against IS. I don't know that religion is a major component or motivation for these soldiers (for some, certainly), and co-opting them all on the basis of nominal affiliation isn't much of argument.

 When I post facts, or an opinion based upon fact, I link to the source of those facts. That way people can judge their veracity.

 

Of course, there are always those who dismiss all facts which counter their own opinion; no matter how substantiated those facts are.

 

OK, maybe calling all Muslims in the UK who are not jihadists 'innocent and law abiding' was overegging the pudding somewhat. Obviously the Muslim community, like all others, contains criminals of one kind or another. But when it comes to jihadism and terrorism it is an apt description, I think.

 

BTW, I could quote you equivalent figures to the 2300 with regard to other, non Muslim terrorist groups; but Scott has ruled such posts off topic; or maybe that was in a similar topic.

 

As for claims that the majority of Muslims reject terrorism; one can only go on the data which exists; the overwhelming floods of condemnation and rejection which has come from Muslims from all over the world and all walks of life since 9/11 and before.

 

Unless, like some here have actually stated, you believe that such condemnation and rejection is all lies designed to lull us infidels into a false sense of security!

 

It is true that some Muslims not only may, but actually do embrace a form of Islam which seems extreme in many eyes; but so do many Jews, many Christians etc. The question is, how many of them wish to force that view upon others by means of violence?

[7by7]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

It would, as posted above, depend on definitions. I think that most intelligence services and police forces treat this as a matter of degree - there's your hardcore, overt support, then sympathizers - expanding circles. Could be more, or less, of them (again, goes back to definitions). These usually bear some relation to legal definitions and provisions.So whether the 23,000 figure refers to the hardcore or includes this or that element is of some importance. Mind, that this comes pretty handy, as it allows some maneuvering room making various claims.

 From all the reports, the 23000 are considered by the security services to be potential terrorist suspects.

 

Of course there may be more, but until they do something to bring themselves to the notice of the security services or police, they will remain unknown.

 

From the Daily Express, not a paper known for it's softhearted, luvvie, left wing stance:

Quote

UP TO 23,000 potential jihadis are reportedly living in Britain as police investigate the sprawling terror network linked to Manchester bomber Salman Abedi.

Security services revealed the figure as they said up to 3,000 would-be terrorists are being investigated as “subjects of interest”.

The announcement, unusual for security agencies such as MI5 and MI6, highlights the difficulties in investigating potential terror threats, according to insiders.

Amid a reported 500 active terror investigations, one security source told the Mail: “It is difficult because becoming aware that someone is an extremist sympathiser does not make them a live and present danger.

“It is a balancing act – is the intelligence sufficient to push them up the list of priorities or should the focus be on someone else given the finite resources available?”

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 When I post facts, or an opinion based upon fact, I link to the source of those facts. That way people can judge their veracity.

 

Of course, there are always those who dismiss all facts which counter their own opinion; no matter how substantiated those facts are.

 

OK, maybe calling all Muslims in the UK who are not jihadists 'innocent and law abiding' was overegging the pudding somewhat. Obviously the Muslim community, like all others, contains criminals of one kind or another. But when it comes to jihadism and terrorism it is an apt description, I think.

 

BTW, I could quote you equivalent figures to the 2300 with regard to other, non Muslim terrorist groups; but Scott has ruled such posts off topic; or maybe that was in a similar topic.

 

As for claims that the majority of Muslims reject terrorism; one can only go on the data which exists; the overwhelming floods of condemnation and rejection which has come from Muslims from all over the world and all walks of life since 9/11 and before.

 

Unless, like some here have actually stated, you believe that such condemnation and rejection is all lies designed to lull us infidels into a false sense of security!

 

It is true that some Muslims not only may, but actually do embrace a form of Islam which seems extreme in many eyes; but so do many Jews, many Christians etc. The question is, how many of them wish to force that view upon others by means of violence?

 

You provide links to many things (not all of them relevant), but tend to tie them with over-reaching interpretations. Quite often what is dismissed isn't the former, but the latter.

 

Characterizing all UK Muslims as Islamist jihadi terrorists, or as supportive of such is obviously wrong. But then again, your accounts are routinely bent on minimizing the issue, through employing inaccurate descriptions. Let us imagine that you did qualify and asserted that the UK's 2.75 million Muslims are innocent, law abiding with regard to Islamic terrorism and that they abhor such actions. Well, obviously it wouldn't apply to all of them - they aren't sheep, guess at least some hold different views. Then there's that 23,000 figure and what is stands for - if it reflects hardcore numbers, then the figures pertaining to sympathizers would be much higher. This is not a claim about the majority view, just one aimed at challenging the strong assertion made.

 

And no, you couldn't quote anything of the sort which pertains to the UK, the present and the level of associated violence and number of terrorist attacks.

 

There is no reliable data referring to global attitudes among Muslims with regard to terrorism. This stems from the different definitions of terrorism is different places, from the way things are phrased and from the level of freedom people enjoy. As pointed out above - the routine citing of this or that instance of condemnation is not contested. But rather, it is the assertion that these amount to the general strong proposition pushed. For almost any instance which exhibits such public condemnation of terrorism, there are other examples which could be cited, of public calls for violence etc. You habitually choose to disregard, ignore or minimize instances not in line with your narrative. And again, this does not imply holding the exact opposite position to yours, just a more balanced one. As in nothing to do with the baiting "Unless, like some here have actually stated, you believe that such condemnation and rejection is all lies designed to lull us infidels into a false sense of security!" - when you know perfectly well this is not the case.

 

Deflect all you like about other religions extremist versions. This topic is about a terrorist attack carried out by a Muslim, and associated with an Islamic terrorist organization. It also deals with the UK - and as far as I'm aware, there isn't any similar, significant terrorist campaign motivated by religion, carried out in country. The point dodged was this - that there are those Muslims who may reject IS, or Islamic terrorism in general, but still be supportive of their extreme beliefs becoming the norm. For some people, perhaps even those commenting on these topics, the distinction loses of its meaning, in the face of the perceived threat. It was an observation, and it would be perhaps more appropriate to address it rather than engage in defensive maneuvers.

 

 

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 From all the reports, the 23000 are considered by the security services to be potential terrorist suspects.

 

Of course there may be more, but until they do something to bring themselves to the notice of the security services or police, they will remain unknown.

 

From the Daily Express, not a paper known for it's softhearted, luvvie, left wing stance:

 

 

That's just repeating the same. Unless there's a clear explanation of who is considered a "potential terrorist" and what the definition implies, there's no way to gauge this figure. The linked article includes bits addressing the issue.

[manarak]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Total ballocks!

 

Judging people by the way they dress!

it's you who is not thinking straight.

many ways to dress are not meant to convey political meaning. some ways are meant to.

and it's not about judging or prejudice.
people who live in a free Western country and still habitually dress that way, or have members of their family dress that way,  want to actively display to the world their extremist beliefs.

please try to explain how I am wrong, how people who habitually dress like that do not have fundamentalistic / extremist views and how dressing in such a way is not a deliberate statement?

Edited September 20, 2017 by manarak

[Opl]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Total ballocks!

 

Judging people by the way they dress!

Judging family, relatives and neighbors when interviewed ...    

British press: one of the suspects is called Yahiah Farroukh and comes from Syria with his family. According to his mother and his sister-in-law, he is a kind, hardworking boy, attending only the right people, and he wanted to go back to university....

And of course those terrorists received no support from them when they try to escape .. 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Opl

[FreddieRoyle]

10 hours ago, manarak said:

I'm unable to come up with figures - my point is just that it's wrong to minimize the extent of the problem to a "tiny" group of violent deranged terrorists.

a family where the father is a beard wearer and the mother a burka wearer is openly supporting extremist islamists. people always like to mix up the clothing issue with religion - but nothing in the Quran says that women need to be covered from head to toe.  it's purely an extremist bigot thing, and there lies the largest visible outer limit of islamist support.

it's not unlike neonazis wearing a swastika armband.

 

So true, there is no practical or religious need to wear such oppressive clothing, it is, just like you say, an expression of supremacy and bigotry/intolerance to others.

 

 The message I'm hearing since this Mother of Satan refugee bombing from muslims is so very confused. After these attacks by muslims we are told the main concern is Islamophobia. Don't let it divide us, carry on as normal, a minutes silence, light up some building with a flag image etc etc with never any suggestion about how to end Islamists trying to kill our women and children in public with mass spectaculars, which is an untenable situation. Plus you have big figures in the Islam world saying things such as 

 "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

 So who is right? Erdogan and other real experts, or some lad on a forum that tells us it's nothing to do with Islam?

 

Frankly, anybody saying the world Islamophobia in any context after these atrocities is mentally ill, end of. They are Islamophobophobes - is that even a word? It should be.