Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

Reports are that from the first 999 call to the last bullet fired was less then 10 minutes...

 

Also great acts of bravery with people throwing bottles, beer and wine glasses, chairs, tables and even bread creates at the murdering bastards...

 

London was not taking this lying down, London fought back

That's right, but, as I pointed out many pages ago, what if the next attack is not in London? What if it's in some remote village?

London is protected with officers on standby, waiting, because it's the capital city. What if it's some suburb of Leeds? Do they have armed police on standby there?

Britain isn't just London, though to hear May, one would think so.

Also, how long are they going to have loads of armed cops sitting in cars? Thanks to May, the numbers of police has been significantly reduced. Crime is still going on elsewhere, but less cops to stop it because many are tied up in central London.

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Flustered said:

Good advice.

 

Unless you are trained in how to respond, you only get in the way.

 

Unless you life is in immediate danger, clear out as quick as you can. If in danger, lash out with whatever is to hand.

I have a lot of problems with that advice. If it is a one two bombing, or a knife attack followed by a bombing "clearing out" may put one right into the second explosion.

If it happens to me when I'm in London next I'm looking for something to use in self defense and hiding in situ.

[Flustered]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I have a lot of problems with that advice. If it is a one two bombing, or a knife attack followed by a bombing "clearing out" may put one right into the second explosion.

If it happens to me when I'm in London next I'm looking for something to use in self defense and hiding in situ.

You are the sort of person who gets others into trouble. Hanging around the incident makes it harder for the security forces to respond. They need to get everyone out, that's why they always tell them to move out of the area.

 

But the again, I doubt very much that you would act. You would be too busy looking for someone to save you.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, balo said:

I blame all this on the Koran. Muslims want to follow the Koran 100% . The laws in a western country must be respected by everyone but muslims believe that the whole world is centered around that book.  

 

The Koran does not tell anyone to drive a car into a crowd and then stab as many as possible.

Islam does lay down rules for everything 1,500 years ago. It's short on advice for now.

The problem is evil people indoctrinating others to do evil things by perverting the Koran, much as the Inquisition perverted the Bible in the middle ages.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Flustered said:

You are the sort of person who gets others into trouble. Hanging around the incident makes it harder for the security forces to respond. They need to get everyone out, that's why they always tell them to move out of the area.

 

But the again, I doubt very much that you would act. You would be too busy looking for someone to save you.

What does "hiding" mean to you- obviously standing around getting in the way.

By all means run around and get blown up, if that is what you want to do.

Don't bother trying to pick a fight on this, as I won't be responding if you do. I've better things to do.

Edited June 6, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Flustered]

I lost my bet. I bet you would knee jerk react within two minutes as you are obviously bored and looking to disagree with everyone. It took you six minutes.

 

Along with many others on this forum, I have gone through the standard six week "Northern Ireland" training prior to my first detachment there. Three tours plus time in Iraq during the Sadam overthrow working with the US military gives me a reasonable view on what you should and should not do.

 

How much terrorist training have you done that makes you qualified to give advice to people what to do in light of this Islamic Terrorist attack?

[Thaiwine]

OK many have said “what do we do?”

 My top 10 thoughts are.

1.       Deport all on the watch list that have a foreign passport and cancel any visa/right to be in the UK.

2.       Anyone who has gone to fight for a terrorist organisation has their passport cancelled.

3.       Cancel any foreign aid to Muslim countries.

4.       Cancel any government funding for religious entities.

5.       Any Muslim wishing to travel to the UK should have extreme vetting (like DT wants) if they don’t like it then don’t come here.

6.       Introduce a national school uniform to be worn by all school children.

7.       Ban Halal food ( thanks Grouse for the idea).

8.       No religious schools (sorry Catholics but you know it makes sense).

9.       No right to UK citizenship for first or second generation migrants.

10.   Any migrant here whose country is now safe to live in must leave or obtain a renewable visa to stay.

 

[Khun Han]

Some half-decent ideas from PM May here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40181444

 

The usual drivel response from the Corbyn crew, and the usual daft soundbyte from Tim Nice But Dim.

[Scott]

Conspiracy troll post removed.   Continue and receive a suspension. 

[transam]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You've done a poll, have you?

We don't need one...

[Morch]

On 6/4/2017 at 11:28 PM, RuamRudy said:

Is deflection your go-to cry, in the same way that some call troll whenever they find something objectionable?

 

I suggested leaving apostasy aside because it is something that is covered by Sharia law, and is, therefore, a factor if Islam. Important in itself, yes, but it clouds the true picture. 

 

I was under the impression we were discussing manifestations of religious intolerance in predominantly Muslim countries. Mentioning apostasy would not "cloud the true picture", but is rather part and parcel of it.

 

And thanks for poignantly making my point about deflections. Carry on.  

[Prbkk]

At some point a group of citizens is going to reach and disarm an attacker in one of these incidents and the results will be gruesome. Not a fan of street justice or lynch mobs but it would be hard to be very critical if it happens.

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 0:49 AM, nong38 said:

They are a bunch of cowards but they wont change our lives and our ways, life goes on.

 

The Police and security services have been magnificent as to have been the ambulance crews and hospital staff.

 

They wont win, they will never win!

 

While I applaud the sentiment, and the spirit in which it was expressed, this is not completely true.

 

Terrorism does change ways of life. It effects public discourse, political outcomes and trends, the way people think about multiple issues. It effects freedoms and liberties taken for granted - be it privacy, civil and legal rights or the simple absence of fear for one's safety.

 

It is true, though, that life goes on. But perhaps that's more about adjustment, subtle or otherwise, to new realities.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Prbkk said:

At some point a group of citizens is going to reach and disarm an attacker in one of these incidents and the results will be gruesome. Not a fan of street justice or lynch mobs but it would be hard to be very critical if it happens.

 

And at some point, a group of citizens is going to mistake someone for an attacker, with equally gruesome results. Slippery slope there.

[Grouse]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terror-attack-fk-<deleted>-you-im-millwall-hero-roy-larner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 9:14 AM, SheungWan said:

The reason why some on the Left (including Corbyn) cannot let the words Islamic Terrorism cross their lips (and it is an absolute red line for these guys) is that it would cross over to their support for Shiite Islamic Terrorism namely Hizbollah and Hamas, so when they condemn individual acts not only are they crocodile tears, the words slide out from only one side of the mouth. It is the simplest of litmus tests.

 

I think the connection between the Left wing (or more correctly, the less mainstream element) of the political spectrum and various Islamic/Islamist/Muslim causes and organizations relates to seeing the latter as a manifestations of the "downtrodden", which plays to the core idealism of the Left.

 

Dealing with the dissonance between the ascribed goals and descriptions of those supported, and the actual prevalent characteristics is quite an effort. Going back to the West's supposed "original sin" argument is one of the obvious cop outs. Disengaging perpetrators from their frameworks (culture, religion) is a one-way proposition, pitted against supposed Western policies as a whole. 

 

And a correction - Hamas is a Sunni outfit, being supported (on and off) by Iran does not change that.

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 10:50 AM, funandsuninbangkok said:

Really?

 

walls don't work?

 

not letting them in won't work?

 

tell me more. How will Islamic terrorist kill people in the US if they are not allowed in?

 

airmail?

 

Walls work to a degree. Same goes for stricter immigration procedures. Numerous ways to bypass either, even if they serve as an obstacle.

 

People can be converted and recruited for a cause, regardless of location. Such is the age of information (or disinformation, take your pick). 

 

No shortage of attempts using mail systems for attacks, even if it's a bit "out" these days.

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 11:12 AM, dexterm said:

Still can't bring yourself to say Saudi Arabia I note , the extreme wahhabi Sunni Muslims, the source of ISIS, Al Qaeda and all the terrorist attacks in Europe and USA, including the OP. More pertinent is the reason you won't name them.

 

Instead you are hijacking this tragedy to tar all Muslims with same brush, with the faux term Islamic terrorism which implies all the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. That's why you wont hear it from me. Just as you wont hear me label last week's Portland attack as Christian terrorism, because it was not done in the name of all the world's Christians.

 

You are attempting to muddy the waters deflecting to focus attention on Iran..the arch enemy of you know who (the ultimate purpose for your post)

 

No Shiite attacks in Europe. But of course your reasons for attempting to conflate and smear Iran and Hizbollah, Hamas and Corbyn,  is your obvious hidden agenda...to defend your friends ....that other infamous terrorist state in the Middle East.

 

The post you replied to referenced "Islamic Terrorism", and the supposed reluctance of some on the Left to say it outright.

 

In your post, the same can be evidenced.

It is not true that "all the terrorist attacks" in Europe and the USA were carried out by Sunni Muslims. There were, in fact, plenty of terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-Muslim organizations and perpetrators. If you wish to characterize the  international Islamic terrorism scene as dominated by Sunnis, fair enough. But that would require a reference to Islamic terrorism, so eh...

 

Referencing "Islamic terrorism" is not a "faux term", but a reality. It does not necessarily imply something negative with regard to the whole World's Muslim population. That is a faux assertion.

 

And while "Shiite attacks" (aka terrorist attacks carried out by Shiite Muslims) are not a "thing", saying that there were none, is again, incorrect (offhand, Bulgaria).

 

Fully expecting "nitpicking" and "pedantry" to feature in reply.

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 2:23 PM, dexterm said:

Precisely. That is why it is wrong to prejudge an entire religion by using the stereotypical phrase Islamic Terrorism.

Only it doesn't. Only if one is terribly insecure.

The reluctance to reference religious affiliation of perpetrators and their organizations is not evenly applied. Doubt most on the West would be angered by referencing a perpetrator's Christian (for example) affiliation and motivations, if these were relevant or salient. It wouldn't necessarily be taken as a comment on the "entire religion".

 

[dexterm]

Just now, Morch said:

Only it doesn't. Only if one is terribly insecure.

The reluctance to reference religious affiliation of perpetrators and their organizations is not evenly applied. Doubt most on the West would be angered by referencing a perpetrator's Christian (for example) affiliation and motivations, if these were relevant or salient. It wouldn't necessarily be taken as a comment on the "entire religion".

 

Only it does if people like you insist on using it because you have a particular Islamophobic not so hidden agenda.

 

Would you call Israeli settler violence Jewish terrorism  as though done in the name of all world Jewry.

Would you call abortion clinic murderers Christian terrorists as though done in the name of all world Christians?

 

What is so difficult for you to call it Islamist terrorism, rightly implying that these acts are perpetrated by fanatics with a particularly warped evil interpretation of a religion.

 

The answer of course is that it serves your purpose to muddy the waters, so that you can conflate these atrocities in London and Manchester with your own Islamophobic agenda.

 

[vogie]

2 hours ago, Senior Player said:

Well, of course it doesn't say "drive a car into a crowd" in the Koran, nor does it say "fly a plane-full of passengers into a tall building" either, simply because none of these existed in the Middle Ages. Unless you a scholar of the Koran and are prepared to underline verses that are unsympathetic to your own spurious views, you know the ones I'm talking about - they involve the word "infidel" - then it's pointless in informing us what their holy book doesn't say. I agree with you on the subject of it "being evil people indoctrinating others to do evil things" but draw the line at "perverting" , especially when the Koran is open to interpretation by its followers. It's not for you to judge who is a true-believer and who isn't, unless you are a scholar or a practicing Muslim.

 

Also, to draw comparisons about the Spanish Inquisition is absurd as they involve completely different circumstances and the real inquisition has been "perverted" by a lot of 19th century fiction. In other words, you need to do a thorough and extensive research in Spanish history and its Inquisition practices before you make such a bold claim.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, our chief weapon is surprise, I'll come in again.

[roo860]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terror-attack-fk--you-im-millwall-hero-roy-larner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html

Just seen a telephone interview with this guy, he was stabbed and slashed 8 times, he took on all 3 attackers, amazing!!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 3:20 PM, 7by7 said:

 To whom are you referring?

 

ISIS? Then yes. They do , unfortunately, have thousands of members and supporters in many countries.

 

A large number, but a tiny fraction of the world's Muslim population.

 

Why do you think they and those like them represent the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, and ignore the words of the many more Muslims worldwide who condemn them?

 

The good old "tiny minority" for the rescue.

 

Most terrorist organizations' actual membership is a fraction of the relevant population. In that sense, they hardly ever "represent" much in the everyday accepted democratic sense. Additionally, presenting the supposed "tiny minority" in contrast to the whole of the relevant population is misleading. There would be many among them supportive and sympathetic to the "cause", without actively partaking or even openly expressing such views.

 

I do not know that words of Muslims condensing such attacks are ignored, certainly they are accepted with some acceptable doubts considering the prevalence of attacks, and what with perpetrators (and potential perpetrators) being integral part of communities.

If such verbal condemnations feature less on media and fail to capture public attention, it may have something to do with people being generally  more inoculated to run of the mill statements and speeches - whether made by activists, community leaders or politicians.

 

Again, that you pronounce a certain point of view to represent "many more Muslims" is all very well, just not really verifiable. One or other talking head making a statement of condemnation does not necessarily "represent" much in the everyday accepted sense.

 

And as pointed out - the same demand for specification is not extended both ways. Always the West, this or that country as a whole, or wide tracts of opposing political sides. No "tiny minority" there.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Only it does if people like you insist on using it because you have a particular Islamophobic not so hidden agenda.

 

Would you call Israeli settler violence Jewish terrorism  as though done in the name of all world Jewry.

Would you call abortion clinic murderers Christian terrorists as though done in the name of all world Christians?

 

What is so difficult for you to call it Islamist terrorism, rightly implying that these acts are perpetrated by fanatics with a particularly warped evil interpretation of a religion.

 

The answer of course is that it serves your purpose to muddy the waters, so that you can conflate these atrocities in London and Manchester with your own Islamophobic agenda.

 

 

I do not have a "particular" (or general) Islamophobic agenda, hidden or otherwise.  Figment of your imagination. Or rather,  same old mud-slinging when nothing better to offer. 

 

With regard to such examples as you raise - I would point out that it doesn't represent the whole of the religion, of course. That would not bar discussion of perpetrators religious motivation, though. Most people can grasp that there are more that one flavor within a religion.

 

For someone often whining about "pedantry" and "nitpicking", hanging the whole argument over  a couple of letters is absurd. For someone often selectively employing or rejecting such broad brush generalizations, making it an issue, is disingenuous.

[Morch]

On 6/5/2017 at 9:17 PM, canuckamuck said:

The Liberal left hates western civilization just as much as the hardcore Muslims.

In the end though, there can be only one, and the Liberals will find tea lights and positive affirmations are a very ineffective defense.

 

In the end though, there can be only one

 

That's a nice Highlander and ISIS combo...

[dexterm]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I do not have a "particular" (or general) Islamophobic agenda, hidden or otherwise.  Figment of your imagination. Or rather,  same old mud-slinging when nothing better to offer. 

 

With regard to such examples as you raise - I would point out that it doesn't represent the whole of the religion, of course. That would not bar discussion of perpetrators religious motivation, though. Most people can grasp that there are more that one flavor within a religion.

 

For someone often whining about "pedantry" and "nitpicking", hanging the whole argument over  a couple of letters is absurd. For someone often selectively employing or rejecting such broad brush generalizations, making it an issue, is disingenuous.

>> Most people can grasp that there are more that one flavor within a religion.

... that's just the point...most racists can't grasp anything other than blind unthinking hatred, and people like you only pander to that by bandying about slogans.

 

But the very fact that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism, yet disingenuously insist with faux indignation on using the former pretending there is no difference, betrays your hidden agenda.

I prefer the late Muhammad Ali's take on the subject...

"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.

We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda."

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/remembering-when-muhammad-ali-destroyed-donald-trump-in-just-132-words--bk3pFYAimW

[Morch]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

They condemn the terrorists as unIslamic, because the terrorist are just that.

 

Muslims have taken to the streets, either on their own or by joining in other demonstrations, to condemn  the terrorists claiming to be acting in the name of their religion.  But every time they do the Islamaphobic media, such as Gatestone, and those who swallow their propaganda say that they are the wrong type of Muslim, or they are lying or, the latest pathetic response, their demonstration is a fake media set up!

 

They are.

 

As soon as I read the above, two names sprung immediately to mind: Ahmed Merabet, the Parisian policeman killed by the Charlie Hebdo murderers, and Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi, a British soldier killed on active service in Afghanistan.

 

Who do you think are the majority fighting against ISIS and other Islamist terrorists in Syria, Libya etc.? Muslim soldiers!

 

Who took over places like the Regent's Park mosque and kicked the radicals out? Ordinary, local Muslims.

 

Who do you think provided much of the intelligence to the British security services which allowed them to foil at least 18 plots in the last 3 years if not members of the local Muslim community where the terrorists were hiding and plotting?

 

I could go on, there are many more examples. Will you, yet again, turn a blind eye to them all?

 

You can go on and on about how Muslims publicly condemn such attacks. And to be fair, even discounting the expected statements from leaders and politicians, many do.

 

But here's this: even if such terrorists are condemned as "unIslamic" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and are considered as an affront to Islam and Muslims - the level of anger, condemnation and public outrage does not equate with instances related to some perceived non-violent slights to Islam. In fact, the latter often result in violent response of one sort or the other.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> Most people can grasp that there are more that one flavor within a religion.

... that's just the point...most racists can't grasp anything other than blind unthinking hatred, and people like you only pander to that by bandying about slogans.

 

But the very fact that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism, yet disingenuously insist with faux indignation on using the former pretending there is no difference, betrays your hidden agenda.

I prefer the late Muhammad Ali's take on the subject...

"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.

We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda."

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/remembering-when-muhammad-ali-destroyed-donald-trump-in-just-132-words--bk3pFYAimW

Think you should watch a zillion youtube vids of what is going on in the UK on regular basis.....

 

You calling folk racists when most of us are married to Asians is daft, in fact many of us have or have had Muslim friends in the UK but we sill know the huge amount of Islamic hate for our country because it's Queen is head of the Christian religion there, and the native populous on mass do not want anything to do with Muslim stuff.....

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> Most people can grasp that there are more that one flavor within a religion.

... that's just the point...most racists can't grasp anything other than blind unthinking hatred, and people like you only pander to that by bandying about slogans.

 

But the very fact that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism, yet disingenuously insist with faux indignation on using the former pretending there is no difference, betrays your hidden agenda.

I prefer the late Muhammad Ali's take on the subject...

"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.

We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda."

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/remembering-when-muhammad-ali-destroyed-donald-trump-in-just-132-words--bk3pFYAimW

 

Use "people like you" and try to pin false labels to your little heart's content.

 

As for your imaginary musings on my motivations while posting "Islamic" or "Islamist", let me set you straight - I don't actually think about it all that much, hence the terms would be found interchangeably in my posts. Similarly, there was no indignation expressed, and again, no "hidden agenda", even you repeat it ad nauseam.

[Morch]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Unlike the majority of self appointed experts on life in the UK posting here, I actually live in the UK. So I can't watch it as it is blocked in the UK by Channel 4 on copyright grounds.

 

But based upon poster's comments, I can guess the contents.

 

I have never denied that there is a major problem with radicalisation among British Muslims, especially amongst young men.

 

I have never denied that this radicalisation leads some into joining terrorist organisations and then committing terrorist acts of murder etc.

 

It is a problem which needs to be solved, and solved urgently.

 

The UK government's Channel programme is designed to identify those at risk of being drawn into radicalisation and terrorism early enough to lead them away. There are various Muslim charities doing the same.

 

The success of these programmes is, of course, hard to quantify.

 

But the problems of Islamic radicalisation, extremism and terrorism in the UK, or anywhere else, will only be solved with the help of the majority of the Muslim population, it will not be solved by demonising and attacking that majority!

 

How does insisting such people are "unIslamic", "do not represent" and so on, contribute to de-radicalization ? Wholesale smearing of all Muslims is wrong. But wholesale denial of such elements being integral doesn't help much either.