3 hours ago, champers said:

The guy from Wales mowed down people. He seems to have been

judged as mentally ill.

I despise the terrorists acting in the name of Islam.

I would put all these nutjobs together in prison and let them sort out their differences under the gaze of armed guards.

There were no Islamic terrorists in the 1970s when the National Front was on the march. I would suggest that the start of Islamic extremism started when Western countries started bombing the hell out of Muslim countries.

So who hijacked all those planes  in the 70s and  shot the athletes at the 1976 Olympics? The Teletubbies? 

2 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Who said he did ?  but he seems a lot more concerned with the Right Wing Terrorism threat 

than he is with what the follower's of Islam are trying are doing to the country !!!!

 

The headlines are chosen by the editor, not the guy quoted, not even the reporter.

There is nothing in the OP that actually supports the notion that "he seems a lot more concerned with Right Wing Terrorism threat", that's an interpretation you dreamed up. What he is actually quoted saying is that there are more Islamic related terrorism actions/plots. The faux zero-sum way in which you try to spin things have nothing to do with reality. There is no finite number of terrorist actions.

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by Morch

52 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Just what the country need's, a assistant commissioner who is in denial !

 

Khurram Butt murdered 7 Londoners on London Bridge PC Mark Rowley stated there was no evidence to suggest Khurram Butt was planning an attack, even though he was filmed spreading ISIS propaganda and praying with ISIS flag. All for a Channel 4 documentary "Jihadi next door"! and was also reported to the police twice.

PC Mark Rowley (Head of Counter-Terrorism) was responsible for Westminster police being unarmed at the gates of Parliament. Too scary for the tourists to see machine guns. PC Palmer was stabbed to death by a Jihadi because of that policy Why wasn't Rowley sacked?

 

 

 

In denial how? From the OP:

 

Quote

Since the first of the 2017 deadly attacks last March, Rowley said police had foiled 10 Islamist conspiracies and four far-right plots,

 

And if you're going to life wholesale quotes from someone's Twitter account as your own, may want to choose a less obviously biased "source".    

 

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The headlines are chosen by the editor, not the guy quoted, not even the reporter.

There is nothing in the OP that actually supports the notion that "he seems a lot more concerned with Right Wing Terrorism threat", that's an interpretation you dreamed up. What he is actually quoted saying is that there are more Islamic related terrorism actions/plots. The faux zero-sum way in which you try to spin things have nothing to do with reality. There is no finite number of terrorist actions.

I'm basing my opinion of him being more concerned with Right Wing Terrorism than Islamic Extremism on the fact that 95% of the article is talking about Right Wing terrorism, when the much larger threat is from Islamic Extremism as seen by the number's i quoted earlier.

3 hours ago, champers said:

The guy from Wales mowed down people. He seems to have been

judged as mentally ill.

I despise the terrorists acting in the name of Islam.

I would put all these nutjobs together in prison and let them sort out their differences under the gaze of armed guards.

There were no Islamic terrorists in the 1970s when the National Front was on the march. I would suggest that the start of Islamic extremism started when Western countries started bombing the hell out of Muslim countries.

 

The self-flagellation brigade is here, and the day is saved.

Not to put a damper on your simplistic reasoning regarding the origins of Islamic extremism, but it's worthwhile noting that there other countries who endured bombing the hell out of them, yet strangely extremism (never mind terrorism campaigns) related to such and directed at the West failed to materialize.

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by Morch

Quote

In denial how? From the OP:

It's not just the OP is it ? in general he seems to play down anything Islamic related !

 

 

Quote

And if you're going to life wholesale quotes from someone's Twitter account as your own, may want to choose a less obviously biased "source".    

If i wanted to make the quotes look like my own i would have typed them out rather than left them with a shaded background, as for the quote's coming from a biased source, the fact that are actual quotes from Mr Rowley make the source irrelevant, unless your saying they are not true ?

15 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

I'm basing my opinion of him being more concerned with Right Wing Terrorism than Islamic Extremism on the fact that 95% of the article is talking about Right Wing terrorism, when the much larger threat is from Islamic Extremism as seen by the number's i quoted earlier.

 

In that case your "opinion" is based on a misunderstanding. The OP is a partial review of an address given by Rowly, in which more than one issue was reviewed. Which bits end up in the article and how they are presented is the reporter's choice. There were several issues were reviewed, and several other potential headline material therein - for instance, the idea that terrorists' kids need to be taken out of their homes and parents denied custody.

 

No one suggested that there are more such right wing attacks/plots relative to Islamic ones. That's just some nonsense you injected into this topic.

 

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by Morch

Just now, alfieconn said:

It's not just the OP is it ? in general he seems to play down anything Islamic related !

 

 

If i wanted to make the quotes look like my own i would have typed them out rather than left them with a shaded background, as for the quote's coming from a biased source, the fact that are actual quotes from Mr Rowley make the source irrelevant, unless your saying they are not true ?

 

No, it is you going on about he's playing it down. Not quite the same. And spin it however you like, it wasn't really all that hard to provide a link to the lifted bits, was it? Your last line might make sense in your own mind, not idea what you think you're on about.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

In that case your "opinion" is based on a misunderstanding. The OP is a partial review of an address given by Rowly, in which more than one issue was reviewed. Which bits end up in the article and how they are presented is the reporter's choice. There were several issues were reviewed, and several other potential headline material therein - for instance, the idea that terrorists' kids need to be taken out of their homes and parents denied custody.

 

No one suggested that there are more such right wing attacks/plots relative to Islamic ones. That' just some nonsense you injected into this topic.

 

I based my opinion on the article displayed on TV.

59 minutes ago, Blackheart1916 said:

So who hijacked all those planes  in the 70s and  shot the athletes at the 1976 Olympics? The Teletubbies? 

The topic is the far right in the UK. I do recall 3 main threads of terrorist conflict in the 70s.

1. Black September, directed against Israel and Israelis abroad.

2. Red Brigade / Bader Meinhoff Group, to bring about the demise of Captalism in Europe. The phrase "Take me to Cuba" was synonymous with hijackings of the time.

3. The Troubles in Northern Ireland, including bombings on the UK mainland. This conflict was ended after almost 30 years by negotiation.

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by champers

 

Just now, alfieconn said:

I based my opinion on the article displayed on TV.

 

Yeah, noted that critical reading isn't a strong suit with some.

<Deleted post>

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by evadgib

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The headlines are chosen by the editor, not the guy quoted, not even the reporter.

There is nothing in the OP that actually supports the notion that "he seems a lot more concerned with Right Wing Terrorism threat", that's an interpretation you dreamed up. What he is actually quoted saying is that there are more Islamic related terrorism actions/plots. The faux zero-sum way in which you try to spin things have nothing to do with reality. There is no finite number of terrorist actions.

He may have said there are more Islamic related terrorism actions/plots. But where does he put his priorities? 

  It is in his PC justification to go after the small groups of Right Wingers rather than the stronger and better organised and more likely to commit terrorism  Islamic. PC is more important than addressing the real problem

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by lovelomsak

12 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

He may have said there are more Islamic related terrorism actions/plots. But where does he put his priorities? 

  It is in his PC justification to go after the small groups of Right Wingers rather than the stronger and better organised and more likely to commit terrorism  Islamic. PC is more important than addressing the real problem

 

I don't think that there's actually much in the OP which supports your "prioritization" hypothesis. There is nothing about going after one rather than the other, even.  

The mainstream media, such as the BBC, would rather gargle battery acid than admit that Islamic terrorism in the UK is a problem. It interferes with their precious narrative that Islam is the "religion of peace".

 

Since everyone knows what a crock of s**t that is, no wonder some people with less than average self-control, shall we say, are going to decide that since their voices are not being heard, they have to take things a step further into action, perhaps violent action.

 

If you disallow debate on legitimate concerns about mass Muslim immigration to the UK, then you inevitably hand ammunition in the form of resentment to certain violent elements of the far Right.

 

End the stultifying PC ban on criticising Islam in any shape or form, and you take away much of the motivation for far-Right violence.

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The mainstream media, such as the BBC, would rather gargle battery acid than admit that Islamic terrorism in the UK is a problem. It interferes with their precious narrative that Islam is the "religion of peace".

 

Since everyone knows what a crock of s**t that is, no wonder some people with less than average self-control, shall we say, are going to decide that since their voices are not being heard, they have to take things a step further into action, perhaps violent action.

 

If you disallow debate on legitimate concerns about mass Muslim immigration to the UK, then you inevitably hand ammunition in the form of resentment to certain violent elements of the far Right.

 

End the stultifying PC ban on criticising Islam in any shape or form, and you take away much of the motivation for far-Right violence.

 

...no wonder some people with less than average self-control, shall we say, are going to decide that since their voices are not being heard, they have to take things a step further into action, perhaps violent action.

 

Ah, that's more like it. The "lone wolf", "mentally unstable" excuses in reverse. Would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that there's actually much in the OP which supports your "prioritization" hypothesis. There is nothing about going after one rather than the other, even.  

Like i have constantly said,  he seem's to have an agenda whereby he want's to try and highlight Right wing extremism and in some cases iv'e even heard him  compare the two !

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by alfieconn

5 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Like i have constantly said,  he seem's to have an agenda whereby he want's to try and put Islamic Extremism and Right Wing on the same level which of course it is not and not even close.

You don't that Islamic extremists are a type of far right? They are, just not from this civilization. A battle with them is not a left right thing, but a war of civilizations. 

 

7 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Like i have constantly said,  he seem's to have an agenda whereby he want's to try and put Islamic Extremism and Right Wing on the same level which of course it is not and not even close.

 

Constantly must mean something different to you. You move the goals posts several times on this topic alone. What he actually said (and quite at length) on this point was that the both draw on similar motivations and modes of operation. There wasn't any reference to figures making them to be "at the same level" in terms of membership, attacks, casualties etc. It was highlighted that this right-wing activity is a relatively new development (which may help to explain the numbers so far).

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Constantly must mean something different to you. You move the goals posts several times on this topic alone. What he actually said (and quite at length) on this point was that the both draw on similar motivations and modes of operation. There wasn't any reference to figures making them to be "at the same level" in terms of membership, attacks, casualties etc. It was highlighted that this right-wing activity is a relatively new development (which may help to explain the numbers so far).

 

Where does he say 

Quote

What he actually said (and quite at length) on this point was that the both draw on similar motivations and modes of operation.

Crikey your making things up now and anyway would he say that when it is not true ?

 

 

Where have i said anything about levels in terms of membership, attacks, casualties etc ?

 

Well in  a recent speech i see of his, he ses and i will try  and get this as close as i can " Both Right Wing Extremist and Islamist are trying to divide communities, both are problems along side each other,  one maybe a bit bigger than the other but both problems alongside each other.

Quote

One maybe a bit bigger than the other

Ses it all really.

 

He then goes on to talk about Anjem Choudary and Tommy Robinson when they are nowhere in the same league, but again he want's to try and put them on the same level, even though Choudary has terrorist link's etc etc

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/16/anjem-choudary-hate-preacher-spread-terror-uk-europe

Not surprising...one can be pro Brexit and against the EU..that's fine if protested peacefully and democratically....but on reading some hate comments here and there, one may assume that socially, the situation seems to be taking violent and racist extremes.

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by observer90210

@alfieconn

 

Are you being intentionaly obtuse and going for the spin by misrepresenting my words or did you actually not understand what I posted?

 

I haven't made up anything. And thanks for making my point. He drawn parallels on the some levels, mostly to do with motivations and ideology. There's naught which amounts to the level of nonsense spewed by some on this topic. And yeah, guess that not being a fan of "Tommy Robinson" (or whatever name he goes by) must irk some.

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by Morch

It would be interesting to know the nature of the far right plots that have been foiled.

 

I'm curious to know if those plots would have resulted in indiscriminate mass slaying of men, women and children on the streets across the UK. Particularly children.  I wonder if any of those plots involved blowing up a load of children attending a teen event.

 

If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest the threat from the far right is on the same level.

30 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

It would be interesting to know the nature of the far right plots that have been foiled.

 

I'm curious to know if those plots would have resulted in indiscriminate mass slaying of men, women and children on the streets across the UK. Particularly children.  I wonder if any of those plots involved blowing up a load of children attending a teen event.

 

If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest the threat from the far right is on the same level.

 

You could look at previous far right attacks for some clues.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_Kingdom

 

The most recent attack hasn't been added to the list yet:

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-finsbury/man-who-drove-van-into-london-mosque-worshippers-jailed-for-43-years-idUKKBN1FM1R4

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

It would be interesting to know the nature of the far right plots that have been foiled.

 

I'm curious to know if those plots would have resulted in indiscriminate mass slaying of men, women and children on the streets across the UK. Particularly children.  I wonder if any of those plots involved blowing up a load of children attending a teen event.

 

If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest the threat from the far right is on the same level.

I seem to remember seeing some pretty concrete evidence of violence on the part of the far right in the UK relatively recently.

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that there's actually much in the OP which supports your "prioritization" hypothesis. There is nothing about going after one rather than the other, even.  

I think there is spurious moral equivalence going on here - it's a typical agenda-disguising tactic nowadays in the mainstream media and we all ought to be watching out for it. Often it is implicit in the existence of the story itself, or the fact that the story it has been selected out of a thousand others and promoted to a world headline, if only because that's where the news agencies assume that's where their market is.

1 hour ago, Slip said:

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It would be interesting to know the nature of the far right plots that have been foiled.

 

I'm curious to know if those plots would have resulted in indiscriminate mass slaying of men, women and children on the streets across the UK. Particularly children.  I wonder if any of those plots involved blowing up a load of children attending a teen event.

 

If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest the threat from the far right is on the same level.

I seem to remember seeing some pretty concrete evidence of violence on the part of the far right in the UK relatively recently.

Ok, you mean violence similar to that I described? I very much doubt it, but feel free to prove me wrong.

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It would be interesting to know the nature of the far right plots that have been foiled.

 

I'm curious to know if those plots would have resulted in indiscriminate mass slaying of men, women and children on the streets across the UK. Particularly children.  I wonder if any of those plots involved blowing up a load of children attending a teen event.

 

If this is the case, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest the threat from the far right is on the same level.

 

You could look at previous far right attacks for some clues.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_Kingdom

 

The most recent attack hasn't been added to the list yet:

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-finsbury/man-who-drove-van-into-london-mosque-worshippers-jailed-for-43-years-idUKKBN1FM1R4

Hardly a comparison, but keep believing if it makes you feel better.

By the way, I'm not denying there is a problem on the far right.  This is about perspective.

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Ok, you mean violence similar to that I described? I very much doubt it, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I mean blood in the gutter violence.  If that is what you believe you describe I'm not sure.