London attacker Khalid Masood was a criminal with militant links

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

London attack: Who was Khalid Masood?

 

I don't know if this will play outside the UK:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08lzmh3/panorama-westminster-terror-attack

 

 

BBC iPlayer only works in the UK.
Sorry, it’s due to rights issues.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

BBC iPlayer only works in the UK.
Sorry, it’s due to rights issues.

 Somebody's put it on YouTube now:

 

 

[Scott]

A troll post has been reported and removed.  

[elliss]

  

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps because the media is owned by the establishment.

Whatever, the spin is in- he's a criminal, so no need to worry about more jihadists sitting in their bedsits planning a copy cat incident.

    Good  news ,   he is  a criminal  , not a terrorist.  

       Back to  walkies tomorrow , with  my poodle .

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, elliss said:

Good  news ,   he is  a criminal  , not a terrorist.

 

Not all criminals are terrorists; but all terrorists are criminals.

 

Masood was a man with a criminal past who committed a terrorist act.

 

ISIS have claimed that he was one of their 'soldiers' but not claimed responsibility for the Westminster attack; which is odd if he was acting on orders from them.

 

7 minutes ago, elliss said:

Back to  walkies tomorrow , with  my poodle .

Enjoy your walk, both of you; and remember you are more likely to knocked down by a drunk driver than a terrorist intent on murder.

[geriatrickid]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Enjoy your walk, both of you; and remember you are more likely to knocked down by a drunk driver than a terrorist intent on murder.

Depends where that walk is. If it is in the south like Pattani,  he is less likely to be hit by a drunk than a drive by bullet. 

[anon4546543]

21 hours ago, simple1 said:

Before commenting on 'safe countries' it would be a good idea to understand the accepted definition under international Convention.

What a joke you are! The international convention does not encourage people to invade another country. It says legitimate refugees should seek sanctuary in the nearest country that provides sanctuary. You should go home and solve your own countries problems before you bring them to a decent civilised country that sorted out these problems eons ago.

[anon4546543]

On 26/03/2017 at 5:33 PM, Krataiboy said:

And YOU need to stop believing the "official" view of world events according to the establishment mass media. Try this useful backgrounder, for starters, from one of the few British newspapers with the guts not alwas to toe the line:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

 

I suggest you do digging around the names, people and places mentioned in the article.I am happy to provide further sources (I've spent many years on research), but only if you are seriously interested. In this case, message me.

Another theory based on no facts

[simple1]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

What a joke you are! The international convention does not encourage people to invade another country. It says legitimate refugees should seek sanctuary in the nearest country that provides sanctuary. You should go home and solve your own countries problems before you bring them to a decent civilised country that sorted out these problems eons ago.

It would appear you're letting your emotions getting in the way of gaining knowledge on international Convention law concerning asylum seekers. Countries can of course enact their own laws contrary to international conventions e.g. Australia.