Police: London stabbings that killed US woman not terrorism

[GuestHouse]

29 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Murdering innocent people does that already - VERY effectively. Unfortunately, apologists for radical Islam like to pretend otherwise. Exposing evil is always a good thing.

 

Point me at some of these apologists' posts and I'll gladly argue against the intolerance and hatred they are defending (you'll recognise my arguments I'm sure). 

 

If however you're simply moving from fear and hatred mongering to the accusation of 'you are with us or against us' so often used by those who wish to stir division in society, I've a few answers for that too.

 

[Ulysses G.]

Instead of relying on insults, innuendos and name calling why don't you try pointing out something I've said about radical Islam that was not true? Hateful, ad hominem attacks are not very convincing.   

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[yogi100]

3 hours ago, GuestHouse said:

 

And I'm calling a fear and hate monger a fear and hate monger, you are a mouth piece for the fear and hatred that terrorist clearly state they wish to instil in our society. 

 

 

When one group of people single out another group with aggressive violent intent you're going to have fear and hatred directed at that group. The cause or reason for the aggression is neither here nor there.

 

Those who sympathise with those aggressors will also become objects of possibly more intense hatred especially if they share the same ethnicity and religion as the victims because they will often be regarded as having betrayed their own kind and will be looked upon as traitors. It's human nature.

Edited August 5, 2016 by yogi100
change wording

[Ulysses G.]

12 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

When one group of people single out another group with aggressive violent intent you're going to have fear and hatred directed at that group. The cause or reason for the aggression is neither here nor there.

 

Those who sympathise with those aggressors will also become objects of possibly more intense hatred especially if they share the same ethnicity and religion as the victims because they will often be regarded as having betrayed their own kind and will be looked upon as traitors. It's human nature.

 

 

The apologists and enablers of Islamic terrorism have a lot to answer for. They have delayed society from responding effectively, by minimizing or denying the problem completely. Luckily, the West seems to have finally woken up to their distortions and lies.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[GuestHouse]

35 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

The apologists and enablers of Islamic terrorism have a lot to answer for. They have delayed society from responding effectively, by minimizing or denying the problem completely. Luckily, the West seems to have finally woken up to their distortions and lies.

Once again, can you please point out an apologist post here on TVF, I'll gladly join you in condemnation of their support of fear and hatred. 

 

You've mentioned them a couple of times in the last page, you presumably have examples in mind. 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but is against forum rules to address them directly. It could be considered a "flame" - even if true. Otherwise I would be glad to name them. Perhaps you should consider those rules before posting. They also apply to you.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[yogi100]

26 minutes ago, GuestHouse said:

Once again, can you please point out an apologist post here on TVF, I'll gladly join you in condemnation of their support of fear and hatred. 

 

You've mentioned them a couple of times in the last page, you presumably have examples in mind. 

 

 

Apologists are those who fail or refuse to condemn Islamic atrocities and who accuse people who do of being racists, bigots and haters etc.

 

The old PC trick of silencing folk with accusations of racism and bigotry when discussing these matters no longer cuts the mustard because the truth is becoming harder to conceal by the day even for the most ardent of left wing hand wringers.

 

Apologists are easily identifiable by the contents of their posts.

 

 

 

 

Nonsense.
It's time to ban the BeeN pea, Br!tain F!r$t, UKIP and other far right organisations.when discussing these matters with accusations of racism no longer cuts the mustard but they still try it on. They can be identified by the contents of their posts.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Apologists are those who fail or refuse to condemn Islamic atrocities and who accuse people who do of being racists, bigots and haters etc.

 

The old PC trick of silencing folk with accusations of racism and bigotry when discussing these matters no longer cuts the mustard because the truth is becoming harder to conceal by the day even for the most ardent of left wing hand wringers.

 

Apologists are easily identifiable by the contents of their posts.

 

 

 

 

Nonsense.
It's time to ban the BeeN pea, Br!tain F!r$t, UKIP and other far right organisations.when discussing these matters with accusations of racism no longer cuts the mustard but they still try it on. They can be identified by the contents of their posts.

 

Well spoken. As far as I'm concerned, you can add calling people "hate mongers" or " Islamophobes," for criticizing Islamic terrorism, to your list.

[MajarTheLion]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Not terrorism! Yeah, and the Nidal Hasan shooting was "workplace violence". I think it's sad that governments think so low of the governed that they think they can say obvious lies like these and expect thinking people to believe them.

[MajarTheLion]

5 hours ago, GuestHouse said:

 

And I'm calling a fear and hate monger a fear and hate monger, you are a mouth piece for the fear and hatred that terrorist clearly state they wish to instil in our society. 

 

 

The first step in solving any problem is to identify it. If anyone is, for whatever reason, too scared to call the terrorism problem what it is, then they are part of the problem and not the solution. It's really that simple.

[MajarTheLion]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I see that Britain is still the US's poodle. Different PM, same agenda.

 

I strongly suggest people view Terry Gilliam's film Brazil. It is showing where all this government BS is leading.

 

 

We can already see where it is leading... it is leading to savages from 7th century civilizations being imported to modern societies where we don't behead homosexuals, don't throw them off roofs, don't stone women to death for infidelity, don't rape them with impunity, don't attack people with knives and axes because our "religion" tell us we should, don't blow up trains and planes so we can go to heaven.

 

Yes, many of us have been watching where this is going for quite some time.

[Goanna]

The muslims may want to stop murdering innocent people to improve their image. Until then, no one will believe this religion of peace nonsense.

[Steely Dan]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Murdering innocent people does that already - VERY effectively. Unfortunately, apologists for radical Islam like to pretend otherwise. Exposing evil is always a good thing.

It's all there public domain in spite of attempts to clear evidence off social media. It took but 30 minutes to get an up to date photo of the murderer instead of the schoolboy picture the press show. Likes for Isis videos, comment using a Quranic quote in support of a 'Britain' held at Gantanamo. 

 

 http://www.infowars.com/london-stabbing-culprit-a-devout-muslim-defended-alleged-terrorist/

 

p.s I was about to post this last night but my internet connection went down. It will be interesting to see whether the mopping up of evidence has removed the link yet.

[simple1]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Like terrorism is not doing that already. Much better to stick your head in the sand and ignore reality. 

 

So far security agencies have not identified substantiated links to Islamic extremism in this incident. Some links provided in this topic just confirm the strong tendency of those on the Right to subscribe to any conspiracy theory in support of their agenda. i.e. accusing media who claimed he is Norwegian of being "PC" when in fact he is a Norwegian national. I fail to comprehend why those on the Right expect media to have irrefutable facts in the immediate aftermath of an incident and always claim it's a coverup - nonsense.

 

Guesthouse in correct that many accuse other TV members of being apologists for Islamist ideology and acts, without substantiating such accusations, including the Right being puppets on a string regards Daesh efforts to destabilise Western societies cohesion.

 

PS: I recall the killer was in the Russell Square area as his mental health clinic is in the same area. Is this correct?

Edited August 5, 2016 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

Some posters on this website. ARE apologists for radical Islam without any doubt. It is blatantly obvious after reading their posts over an extended period of time. Others are simply enablers who think they are "open-minded" and make excuses for the terrorists. To them, I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Some posters on this website. ARE apologists for radical Islam without any doubt. It is blatantly obvious after reading their posts over an extended period of time. Others are simply enablers who think they are ,"open-minded". If the shoe fits, wear it. 

Firstly member of the radical right in this forum post support for murder of Muslim civilians, sneer at death by drowning etc including members who have posted in the topics regards the Russell Square murder; do you personally support such content for those you seek to defend?

 

Mods is it permissible to provide quotes of those allegedly supporting radical Islam or on the other side on the coin to persistently smear members with accusations of sympathising, support Islamist ideology & acts without evidence.

[Ulysses G.]

I do not remember anyone in favor of murdering innocent Muslim civilians, so can not comment on that, but, of course I do not support it. 

I do remember posters justifying and excusing Islamic terrorism though - plenty of times. That is who I am talking about.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

I very strongly suggest you discuss the topic and stop with the bickering fest.

 

Continued remarks aimed at individual members rather than the topic are not permitted.  

[daveAustin]

It may not be terrorism, but he is an Islamist. Okay, it's one nut job (we think), but there's a dark cloud building all over Europe.

In a way, if there is more to it, it is probably best to keep schtum. Unrest is already growing in the UK since Brexit. If I were of that religion and had any sway in the Muslim world there, I would be doing my best to keep my people in order... it ain't going to make much for it all to kick off. 

[Steely Dan]

Every attack seems to follow the same pattern. There is a big delay in naming the attacker, which gives the authorities and social media sites time to erase info not supporting the narrative of mental illness.  The authorities know their stance is untenable in the long term but are no doubt counting on each event fading from view before the full details emerge.

 

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-did-ill-suspect-of-somali-descent-in-uk-attack-study-terror/

 

Between January 2014 and September 2015, Zakaria Bulhan flagged up on Good Reads three books on Islam and Islamist theology as texts they intended to read.

The most interesting, and the one that shows that at the age of 17 this person was at the very least exploring a book which is very clear on urging violent jihadism as a duty of Muslims, is Riyad-us-Saliheen, a 13th century text.

One of his friends on the book review site was incidentally reading a book about explosives. None of this of course provides conclusive proof of intent, but to say the least eyebrows should be raised over the police as seeing this was probably a case of mental illness when a short Internet search provides a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

[yogi100]

 

Following a second attempted kidnap of a British serviceman by Islamists, the British military has banned the wearing of British military uniforms on the streets of Britain. The first time this has ever happened in our history. It's to stop them being attacked and murdered by the Islamic enemy.

 

When you consider that the British military, created to serve and defend the interests and lives of British people, have been removed from the streets of the country they serve because British governments have introduced a fifth column of militant Islamists, hell-bent and dedicated to the annihilation of Britain and the conquest and subjugation of the people of Britain something is rotten at the top.

 

Instead of taking radical steps by detaining and deporting those with murderous intent our treasonous politicians are hell bent on bringing even more of the prospective enemy into what was once our country.

 

[RuamRudy]

42 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

It may not be terrorism, but he is an Islamist. Okay, it's one nut job (we think), but there's a dark cloud building all over Europe.

In a way, if there is more to it, it is probably best to keep schtum. Unrest is already growing in the UK since Brexit. If I were of that religion and had any sway in the Muslim world there, I would be doing my best to keep my people in order... it ain't going to make much for it all to kick off. 

 

An islamist? You mean a Muslim? He also has dark hair, much like I had in my younger days. Therefore, should you castigate all those with dark hair, because at this point the colour of his hair has as much to do with his actions as the faith he was raised in.

Edited August 6, 2016 by RuamRudy

[GuestHouse]

14 minutes ago, Steely Dan said:

Every attack seems to follow the same pattern. There is a big delay in naming the attacker, which gives the authorities and social media sites time to erase info not supporting the narrative of mental illness.  The authorities know their stance is untenable in the long term but are no doubt counting on each event fading from view before the full details emerge.

 

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-did-ill-suspect-of-somali-descent-in-uk-attack-study-terror/

 

 

 

One of his friends on the book review site was incidentally reading a book about explosives. None of this of course provides conclusive proof of intent, but to say the least eyebrows should be raised over the police as seeing this was probably a case of mental illness when a short Internet search provides a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

 

I hope I'm never judged on the basis of the books my friends read. 

 

I've a dear friend who spends a lot of time researching epidemics and another who researches antibiotic tolerance in what we refer to as 'superbugs'. 

 

 

[yogi100]

 

Neither must it be overlooked that while the British military uniform has been banned in Britain, the wearing of the burqa and niqab which are symbols of Islam is permitted and fiercely defended by those same traitorous politicians. Not forgetting a London Mayor with proven Islamist links who would happily have us open our gates even wider and invite in even more of the enemy.

 

How many more 'Norwegians' are lurking in the shadows just waiting for the chance to make a name for themselves and become heroes in Islamic eyes for all eternity.

[ClutchClark]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

An islamist? You mean a Muslim? He also has dark hair, much like I had in my younger days. Therefore, should you castigate all those with dark hair, but at this point the colour of his hair has as much to do with his actions as the faith he was raised in.

 

So his Muslim faith had avsolutely no influence on the motivation for his attack?

 

And you know this how?

[GuestHouse]

18 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Neither must it be overlooked that while the British military uniform has been banned in Britain, the wearing of the burqa and niqab which are symbols of Islam is permitted and fiercely defended by those same traitorous politicians. Not forgetting a London Mayor with proven Islamist links who would happily have us open our gates even wider and invite in even more of the enemy.

 

How many more 'Norwegians' are lurking in the shadows just waiting for the chance to make a name for themselves and become heroes in Islamic eyes for all eternity.

 

Wow!

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

So his Muslim faith had avsolutely no influence on the motivation for his attack?

 

And you know this how?

 

I don't but neither do you - you are the one jumping to a conclusion and repeating it ad nauseum. As they say, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth - that is the dogma of the Daily Mail.

[Kiwiken]

44 minutes ago, Steely Dan said:

Every attack seems to follow the same pattern. There is a big delay in naming the attacker, which gives the authorities and social media sites time to erase info not supporting the narrative of mental illness.  The authorities know their stance is untenable in the long term but are no doubt counting on each event fading from view before the full details emerge.

 

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-did-ill-suspect-of-somali-descent-in-uk-attack-study-terror/

 

 

 

One of his friends on the book review site was incidentally reading a book about explosives. None of this of course provides conclusive proof of intent, but to say the least eyebrows should be raised over the police as seeing this was probably a case of mental illness when a short Internet search provides a lot of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

I think the word One should focus on is Circumstantial. Since when do we in the So called Civilised World convict or incriminate on Circumstantial evidence. It is not a far leap from assuming Guilt to the Lynch Mob. And Once there what differentiates you from the Jihadist?

[yogi100]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't but neither do you - you are the one jumping to a conclusion and repeating it ad nauseum. As they say, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth - that is the dogma of the Daily Mail.

 

It's best to ignore reports regarding Islamic terrorism in liberal outlets such as The Guardian. the BBC, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror and the Independent.

 

They've all referred to the mental health condition of the Russel Square knife man.

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't but neither do you - you are the one jumping to a conclusion and repeating it ad nauseum. As they say, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth - that is the dogma of the Daily Mail.

 

Strange...that was my first post on this thread...it appears youre quite confused.

 

Additionally, you present your messages as fact and so I simply requested the source.

 

I understand its early in the day for some of you guys and maybe thats why you are cranky?

 

;-)