Woman beheaded in London attack

[7by7]

As the post mortem report, linked to previously, on Mrs Silva clearly shows, Salvador did not set out to behead her.

BBC got it wrong then, it's a bit sad nit picking about if he intended to cut her head off or not surely? when he actually did.

A post-mortem examination on Saturday found Ms Silva died from stab wounds to the heart and aorta. She was found decapitated, it is understood

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29093538

Not at all; did he intend to decapitate her; or was her decapitation the result of his frenzied attack?

All the evidence from the post mortem suggests the latter.

I repeat what I said above:

There is still absolutely no evidence to remotely suggest that Salvador is a radical Islamist terrorist who deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to murder; other than in your mind and those like you who will use any excuse to demonise Muslims; even the horrific murder of an old woman by a rampaging, probably drug and/or alcohol fuelled, maniac.

[transam]

7by7: "But most skinheads are not neo Nazis, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Salvador is a fundamental Muslim jihadist."

Ulysses G: "Absolutely no evidence, other than the fact that he was a convert to Islam who cut a ladies head off. Mohammed Atta, and the other 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints and so on, so there goes your spin that radical Islamic murderers don't do such things."

7by7: "My spin? I have never said such."

Spin away!

Salvador is known to have an alcohol and a drug problem. (A devout Muslim willing to kill and die for the cause has an alcohol and drug problem?!)

Congratulations; you have finally found a post of mine to back up what you say (ish).

Odd that you can never do so when you accuse me of apologising for and excusing acts of terrorism!

Rather, not odd; because I have never done so.

There is still absolutely no evidence to remotely suggest that Salvador is a radical Islamist terrorist who deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to murder; other than in your mind and those like you who will use any excuse to demonise Muslims; even the horrific murder of an old woman by a rampaging, probably drug and/or alcohol fuelled, maniac.

Hmmmmmmmm, you his lawyer..?..........

[7by7]

Who? Ulysses G?

No.

Salvador?

No; I sincerely hope he gets what coming to him; locked away with a whole life tariff.

Perhaps you can follow Ulysses G's example and produce a post of mine in which I have made a remark which could in any way be taken as defending him.

[jacky54]

There is still absolutely no evidence to remotely suggest that Salvador is a radical Islamist terrorist who deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to murder; other than in your mind and those like you who will use any excuse to demonise Muslims; even the horrific murder of an old woman by a rampaging, probably drug and/or alcohol fuelled, maniac.

But evidence that he was in fact a Muslim with a knife who took an innocent woman's head off, the rest is just hair splitting. Being under the influence if drink or drugs (you seem to hope) does not make him LESS of a muslim and no excuse in law anyway. I think it's pretty offensive to try and claim he did not intend to take her head off when that's what he did finally, you will be telling us next the 9/11 murderers did not intend to fly planes into the WTC, who knows maybe they were on drugs as well.

[MJP]

Jacky whenever you post there's an echo.

Edited September 8, 2014 by MJP

[jacky54]

Do you think it's my mouse?

[MJP]

Do you think it's my mouse?

Could be.

[Ulysses G.]

7by7: "But most skinheads are not neo Nazis, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Salvador is a fundamental Muslim jihadist."

Ulysses G: "Absolutely no evidence, other than the fact that he was a convert to Islam who cut a ladies head off. Mohammed Atta, and the other 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints and so on, so there goes your spin that radical Islamic murderers don't do such things."

7by7: "My spin? I have never said such."

Spin away!

Salvador is known to have an alcohol and a drug problem. (A devout Muslim willing to kill and die for the cause has an alcohol and drug problem?!)

Congratulations; you have finally found a post of mine to back up what you say (ish).

Another in along line of them, but, apparently one that you finally realize that you can't wriggle out of. Who says there is no such thing as progress?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[canuckamuck]

As the post mortem report, linked to previously, on Mrs Silva clearly shows, Salvador did not set out to behead her.

BBC got it wrong then, it's a bit sad nit picking about if he intended to cut her head off or not surely? when he actually did.

A post-mortem examination on Saturday found Ms Silva died from stab wounds to the heart and aorta. She was found decapitated, it is understood

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29093538

Not at all; did he intend to decapitate her; or was her decapitation the result of his frenzied attack?

All the evidence from the post mortem suggests the latter.

I repeat what I said above:

There is still absolutely no evidence to remotely suggest that Salvador is a radical Islamist terrorist who deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to murder; other than in your mind and those like you who will use any excuse to demonise Muslims; even the horrific murder of an old woman by a rampaging, probably drug and/or alcohol fuelled, maniac.

The evidence shows he stabbed her to death and then cut her head off. Why would he need to take her head off if he had already killed her? Seems like a symbolic act to me. The first part to subdue her and then the decapitation to make the statement.

[Cambodger]

7by7: "But most skinheads are not neo Nazis, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Salvador is a fundamental Muslim jihadist."

Ulysses G: "Absolutely no evidence, other than the fact that he was a convert to Islam who cut a ladies head off. Mohammed Atta, and the other 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints and so on, so there goes your spin that radical Islamic murderers don't do such things."

7by7: "My spin? I have never said such."

Spin away!

Salvador is known to have an alcohol and a drug problem. (A devout Muslim willing to kill and die for the cause has an alcohol and drug problem?!)

Congratulations; you have finally found a post of mine to back up what you say (ish).

Another in along line of them, but, apparently one that you finally realize that you can't wriggle out of. Who says there is no such thing as progress?

He's taken one hell of a beating in this thread- Well done chaps.

[H1w4yR1da]

Not just in this thread. The apologists have taken a hell of a beating in many threads concerning Islam

There's also the Jihad in UK thread, the Rotherham thread, the jihadists returning to Australia thread etc.

[7by7]

7by7: "But most skinheads are not neo Nazis, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Salvador is a fundamental Muslim jihadist."

Ulysses G: "Absolutely no evidence, other than the fact that he was a convert to Islam who cut a ladies head off. Mohammed Atta, and the other 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints and so on, so there goes your spin that radical Islamic murderers don't do such things."

7by7: "My spin? I have never said such."

Spin away!

Salvador is known to have an alcohol and a drug problem. (A devout Muslim willing to kill and die for the cause has an alcohol and drug problem?!)

Congratulations; you have finally found a post of mine to back up what you say (ish).

Another in along line of them, but, apparently one that you finally realize that you can't wriggle out of. Who says there is no such thing as progress?

Another in a long line of them? Really?

Then how come it's the only one you've ever found? Despite repeated requests that you justify your regular putting of words in my mouth!

Oh, hang on, there was another one where you edited the quote to make it seem that I had said something I hadn't.

[Ulysses G.]

Another in a long line of them? Really?

Then how come it's the only one you've ever found?

Poppycock. It's not the only one I've found. It's the only one that you have not tried obfuscating. I usually don't even bother searching them out anymore as the usual dishonest spin gets annoying, but this one was so easy to find, that I could not resist.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

(Some quotes removed to comply with forum software)

There is still absolutely no evidence to remotely suggest that Salvador is a radical Islamist terrorist who deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to murder; other than in your mind and those like you who will use any excuse to demonise Muslims; even the horrific murder of an old woman by a rampaging, probably drug and/or alcohol fuelled, maniac.

But evidence that he was in fact a Muslim with a knife who took an innocent woman's head off, the rest is just hair splitting. Being under the influence if drink or drugs (you seem to hope) does not make him LESS of a muslim and no excuse in law anyway. I think it's pretty offensive to try and claim he did not intend to take her head off when that's what he did finally, you will be telling us next the 9/11 murderers did not intend to fly planes into the WTC, who knows maybe they were on drugs as well.

The evidence shows he stabbed her to death and then cut her head off. Why would he need to take her head off if he had already killed her? Seems like a symbolic act to me. The first part to subdue her and then the decapitation to make the statement.

You are all concentrating on just two aspects; he's a Muslim, his victim was decapitated. You constantly ignore all the other evidence which does not suit your agenda.

Yes, he may be, probably is, a Muslim convert.

Yes, he committed a frenzied attack on Mrs Silva, during which she was decapitated.

There is absolutely no evidence that he deliberately decapitated her.

There is absolutely no evidence that he deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to kill.

All the evidence suggests that after a heated exchange with his flatmates he chased them into the street and when they got away he lashed out at whatever was close; a passing car, a rose bush, two cats and finally poor Mrs Silva.

There were a large number of witnesses, from the names given in the news reports most of them non Muslim. Not a single one has ever said he was proclaiming jihadist statements. If he had been, the right wing press, certainly the Sun which started this whole nonsense about his actions being motivated by his religion, would have found someone to say so by now.

Instead, witnesses report that what he was actually shouting was "Cat stole my lighter!"

Where is that in the Koran or Hadiths?

But you two and the others of your mind set aren't interested in evidence; all you are interested in is that he has been reported by some as being Muslim.

Therefore, in your minds he must be a jihadist who was hell bent on killing a non Muslim.

The English legal system grinds exceedingly slow, and when he does eventually come to court and all the evidence is presented in public, you lot will have forgotten about him and Mrs Silva and found other targets upon which to vent your rabid Islamaphobia and poisoned spleens.

If it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

If the opposite is true and, as the evidence and police statements suggest, this vicious killing had nothing to do with Salvador's religion; will you all do the same?

Meanwhile, something for you to ponder: Are beheadings terrorism? Palmira Silva was the third woman to be decapitated in London this year.

In the 6 cases cited in that article, only two perpetrators have Islamic sounding names, one of whom killed his wife, the other his girlfriend.

Not excusing either of those murders, of course, nor any other; but it is going to be difficult for you to claim that those two and the other cases were carried out by Islamic jihadists!

[7by7]

Another in a long line of them? Really?

Then how come it's the only one you've ever found?

Poppycock. It's not the only one I've found. It's the only one that you have not tried obfuscating. I usually don't even bother searching them out anymore as the usual dishonest spin gets annoying, but this one was so easy to find, that I could not resist.

Editing a quote to suit your spin; again.

The full quote

Another in a long line of them? Really?

Then how come it's the only one you've ever found? Despite repeated requests that you justify your regular putting of words in my mouth!

Oh, hang on, there was another one where you edited the quote to make it seem that I had said something I hadn't.

[Ulysses G.]

"Editing your quote"? Did I change the meaning in any way? Don't you think that readers would remember what you had written in the post immediately preceding mine, if I had?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

You are all concentrating on just two aspects; he's a Muslim, his victim was decapitated.

Maybe because those things are so obvious and there is very little evidence to contradict them, despite all your efforts to make something out of nothing:

There is absolutely no evidence that he deliberately decapitated her.

If you write a line of zeroes, it´s still nothing.

― Ayn Rand,

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

It is you and those who think like you who are trying to make something out of nothing; and you do so by ignoring all the other evidence as it does not suit your agenda.

Tell me, why would an Islamic jihadist intent on decapitating a non Muslim be shouting "Cat stole my lighter" as he lashed out at a car, a rose bush, two cats and finally Mrs Silva?

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

If the opposite is true and, as the evidence and police statements suggest, this vicious killing had nothing to do with Salvador's religion; will you all do the same?

Care to answer; it's not that difficult a question.

[canuckamuck]

The evidence shows he stabbed her to death and then cut her head off. Why would he need to take her head off if he had already killed her? Seems like a symbolic act to me. The first part to subdue her and then the decapitation to make the statement.

You are all concentrating on just two aspects; he's a Muslim, his victim was decapitated. You constantly ignore all the other evidence which does not suit your agenda.

Yes, he may be, probably is, a Muslim convert.

Yes, he committed a frenzied attack on Mrs Silva, during which she was decapitated.

There is absolutely no evidence that he deliberately decapitated her.

There is absolutely no evidence that he deliberately set out to find a non Muslim to kill.

All the evidence suggests that after a heated exchange with his flatmates he chased them into the street and when they got away he lashed out at whatever was close; a passing car, a rose bush, two cats and finally poor Mrs Silva.

There were a large number of witnesses, from the names given in the news reports most of them non Muslim. Not a single one has ever said he was proclaiming jihadist statements. If he had been, the right wing press, certainly the Sun which started this whole nonsense about his actions being motivated by his religion, would have found someone to say so by now.

Instead, witnesses report that what he was actually shouting was "Cat stole my lighter!"

Where is that in the Koran or Hadiths?

But you two and the others of your mind set aren't interested in evidence; all you are interested in is that he has been reported by some as being Muslim.

Therefore, in your minds he must be a jihadist who was hell bent on killing a non Muslim.

The English legal system grinds exceedingly slow, and when he does eventually come to court and all the evidence is presented in public, you lot will have forgotten about him and Mrs Silva and found other targets upon which to vent your rabid Islamaphobia and poisoned spleens.

If it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

If the opposite is true and, as the evidence and police statements suggest, this vicious killing had nothing to do with Salvador's religion; will you all do the same?

Meanwhile, something for you to ponder: Are beheadings terrorism? Palmira Silva was the third woman to be decapitated in London this year.

In the 6 cases cited in that article, only two perpetrators have Islamic sounding names, one of whom killed his wife, the other his girlfriend.

Not excusing either of those murders, of course, nor any other; but it is going to be difficult for you to claim that those two and the other cases were carried out by Islamic jihadists!

Heads don't just fall off in a stabbing attack.

I have butchered a number of animals for meat. What I know for sure is that the head won't come off by accident. you have to saw at it a bit, or put some real force behind a chop or two.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind but yours ( and probably even you believe but will not admit ) that this was a deliberate beheading.

[transam]

It is you and those who think like you who are trying to make something out of nothing; and you do so by ignoring all the other evidence as it does not suit your agenda.

Tell me, why would an Islamic jihadist intent on decapitating a non Muslim be shouting "Cat stole my lighter" as he lashed out at a car, a rose bush, two cats and finally Mrs Silva?

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

If the opposite is true and, as the evidence and police statements suggest, this vicious killing had nothing to do with Salvador's religion; will you all do the same?

Care to answer; it's not that difficult a question.

You are blind to near anything............

A cat stole a lighter......

The authorities for sure do not want a "religion" connection because of repercussions. Sounds sensible to me.

[Ulysses G.]

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

You mean like when you claimed over and over again that the IRA met with the UK government for "talks with no pre-conditions" and dr_lucas proved you wrong? You just kept insisting that you were right, despite conclusive evidence otherwise. Who actually believes that you will keep your word?

[ukrules]

It is you and those who think like you who are trying to make something out of nothing; and you do so by ignoring all the other evidence as it does not suit your agenda.

Tell me, why would an Islamic jihadist intent on decapitating a non Muslim be shouting "Cat stole my lighter" as he lashed out at a car, a rose bush, two cats and finally Mrs Silva?

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

If the opposite is true and, as the evidence and police statements suggest, this vicious killing had nothing to do with Salvador's religion; will you all do the same?

Care to answer; it's not that difficult a question.

I suspect that someone needs to be a bit crazy to be a head chopping jihadist.

Am I surprised that someone who goes around chopping heads off has other mental issues ? No, I'm not. Not a bit.

[Ulysses G.]

The shoe-bomber was not exactly sane either and he was a member of al-Qaeda. Most radicalized Westerners are loons that were losers in real life.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

You mean like when you claimed over and over again that the IRA met with the UK government for "talks with no pre-conditions" and dr_lucas proved you wrong? You just kept insisting that you were right, despite conclusive evidence otherwise. Who actually believes that you will keep your word?

1) dr_lucas proved no such thing; he was talking about the official talks, I was talking about the unofficial talks which led to those official talks.

But don't let that stop you from bringing it up again and again; the whole truth is of no interest to you; only the edited bits you can use in your spin.

2) Whether you believe that I will keep my word or not; how about you. Will you publicly eat humble pie if, as I believe and all the evidence suggests, it turns out that this was not a religiously motivated attack?

3) How about all you others who pick out two facts from the evidence and ignore all the rest? Will you do the same?

Go on; commit yourselves if you are so sure that you are right.

[Ulysses G.]

1) dr_lucas proved no such thing; he was talking about the official talks, I was talking about the unofficial talks which led to those official talks.

You mean when they contacted the IRA to give them the conditions for talking. You never stop spinning.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[transam]

I repeat; if it turns out that you are all right that he was a Muslim fanatic looking for a non Muslim to kill as a symbolic statement of some kind, I will publicly eat as much humble pie as you require.

You mean like when you claimed over and over again that the IRA met with the UK government for "talks with no pre-conditions" and dr_lucas proved you wrong? You just kept insisting that you were right, despite conclusive evidence otherwise. Who actually believes that you will keep your word?

1) dr_lucas proved no such thing; he was talking about the official talks, I was talking about the unofficial talks which led to those official talks.

But don't let that stop you from bringing it up again and again; the whole truth is of no interest to you; only the edited bits you can use in your spin.

2) Whether you believe that I will keep my word or not; how about you. Will you publicly eat humble pie if, as I believe and all the evidence suggests, it turns out that this was not a religiously motivated attack?

3) How about all you others who pick out two facts from the evidence and ignore all the rest? Will you do the same?

Go on; commit yourselves if you are so sure that you are right.

You are always first to protect killers from certain folk here. In fact I find it fun to wait for your inevitable blabber, just brings a smile to my face......

[arjunadawn]

The evidence shows he stabbed her to death and then cut her head off. Why would he need to take her head off if he had already killed her? Seems like a symbolic act to me. The first part to subdue her and then the decapitation to make the statement.

I would imagine a police data investigation of all similar civilian beheadings in UK would show up relatively few. When considering this act in regard to the recent depraved acts of UK muslim jihadis in the Levant, it strains the mind to think it is not linked (oh, and he is purported to be muslim). Your point above nails it!

The next step in this drama may be the preposterous UK government spinning this into a landscaping accident or other nonsense. Whether this happens or not the UK government has a long history of radical islamic appeasement and in pursuit of multicultural nonsense, purchasing dhimmitude for the citizens of UK. It is this backdrop that events currently unfold. IMO, the UK really needs to step up the plate and wake up. You guys are ground zero for the Eurabia pot to boil over. I deeply wish the British luck in this effort. They have a lot of soil to reclaim.

[arjunadawn]

Not just in this thread. The apologists have taken a hell of a beating in many threads concerning Islam

There's also the Jihad in UK thread, the Rotherham thread, the jihadists returning to Australia thread etc.

Yea, I noticed this too but what I notice more is there is an awful lot of people reading these threads. This innocent woman issue captivates people because it brings the full depravity of the islamic-cult full circle, to our homes, our porch, our backyards.

These issues (effectively only one issue- islam) is front and center on everyone's mind. Were the majority of the TV members (and non members) blind to the islamic problem that is currently infesting the world they would hardly be spontaneously spending time reading these threads. Disparate muslim raging across the world is crystallizing into an undeniable reality.

They are viewing these posts in such large numbers because they too have valid fear that this islamic jihad ideology is now out of control and our governments have not only been asleep at the wheel but they have been advancing this cult either directly (manipulating muslims as tools in the mid east), or indirectly (forcing us into dhimmis by cultural relativism and what has been termed "identicality). Either way, our governments have empowered islamic cult radicals and people are sick and tired. Therefore, I read the views on these posts as a poll, of sorts. People want to know their private observations are validated by others defining and discussing it.

I deeply hold the majority of the western world agrees with my position- its time to kill the cancer before the host expires! A really great place to understand why this woman may have been killed, and why our minds suspect there is more to this story:

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts deleted. Please stay on topic.

[arjunadawn]

7by7- I am only curious: do you get it?

I am not talking about your arguments or those against you. I am curious, do you understand why folks like me are worried, or why so many have fear of the Third Jihad of islamic expansion? You appear committed to your line of reasoning, but do you understand the world of islamic jihad today has people worried?