Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

 When i made my comment about Bush and Blair Christians i had a limited knowledge of any details and certainly i did not describe them as crusading Christans. However your challenge of my comments led me to do a few Blair / Bush Christians? searches. The results surprised me, it appears that they were both indeed crusading Chrstians and there is strong suggestion that Blair's Christianity was a significant influence in him going to war in Iraq.

 

And now we have Thereas May, apparently another fine Christian.

Disagree.  Their decisions were political in motive and had nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or it could be that I find unconvincing the moral outrage of people who compose all sort of vile comments on these pages.

 

You have no issues with faux moral outrage on other topics. Pull the other one.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

It seems he is the one that should press it then, he is the one contacting me, and not me contacting him, a bit tricky for you?

 

Not all is as it seems. You have the option to ignore another forum member, by choosing the option on the profile. Used it only once, works like a charm. If you need any tips ask JT (unless you're on his ignore list, that is).

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

These people will find out that it is a major mistake to underestimate the British. I suspect many hard lessons will be handed out.

 

Some of "these people" were born in the UK, or at least naturalized for quite a while.

[cmsally]

There seems to be a lot of duplicity involved and I would imagine a lot of people who are aware of what "people want to hear" and what is expedient to say.

In this article

The Times - Killers brother given money ...

 

it seems one of the killers families were actually given money by the police as part of the Prevent programme, which should be funding against radicalisation!

When people are savvy to what should be said and exhibited in public it is very difficult to scrape under the surface.

[Opl]

1 hour ago, cmsally said:

There seems to be a lot of duplicity involved and I would imagine a lot of people who are aware of what "people want to hear" and what is expedient to say.

In this article

The Times - Killers brother given money ...

 

it seems one of the killers families were actually given money by the police as part of the Prevent programme, which should be funding against radicalisation!

When people are savvy to what should be said and exhibited in public it is very difficult to scrape under the surface.

They live among themselves, they talk to each other only, so I think they should go home.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, transam said:

You are now trolling.....You stated I don't answer your questions regarding this thread....Go for it...Go on ask your racist...Afraid....?

Since you have bottled it and refuse to back up your accusations against me with evidence; I shall start with the question posed to you in this post:

That question being: why do you think they (ISIS) 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?

 

I've already repeated that question once; will you answer this time?

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.  

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, we have lots of examples of mass murders in the USA committed not in the name of Islam. They used to elicit a strong reaction. Not so much anymore.  Maybe in time that's what will happen with these kind of attacks, too. Although certain politicians will do their best to keep the populace boiling.

 

And once again, investigation of terror attacks and mass murders such as you describe are not similar. Same goes for operations and policies aimed at countering them. If you refer to desensitization on the public's part - I think it usually comes with the added price tag of caring less about civil rights. Politicians inciting the public works if there's some relevant backdrop.

 

Another thing is that people, generally speaking, have a certain hierarchy of acceptance with regard to adversities. For example, things perceived as natural phenomenon elicit less outrage. even if they cause more damage. Similarly, the motivations of an action (such as a terrorist attack, especially foreign) will effect the way it is perceived.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Err no. There is requirement that either bogus claim would be correct. It isn't a zero sum thing. That is, unless you are a believer and then the whole "Islamic" vs. "unIslamic" means something for you. Most sacrilegious people can accommodate the notion of rival schools of thought within a religion, without the resorting to "excommunicate" anyone. And as pointed out earlier, the whole concept of "representation" is based on a rather flimsy foundation in this case. Making it into a faux either or thing is just nonsense.

 

What you actually posted was:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/986260-police-rush-to-london-bridge-after-reports-of-van-hitting-pedestrians/?page=65#comment-11962375

 

So you didn't say that the "denial of burial could have an enormous effect", but that the application of labels can. I'm sure that you can dodge and twist that one too. Go for it. As for repeatedly making this too into a faux agree/disagree issue, allow me to point out that there are probably more ways of seeing it. But if pressed, no - if there were indeed many religious leaders calling for one course of action, and only a single person heeded, it couldn't be termed worthwhile.

 

I wouldn't know that you're all that familiar with ISIS recruiting protocols, and the point made was different anyway, Namely, that negatively commenting on ISIS leaders being more politically than religiously oriented is meaningless, both in the sense that it does not matter all that much, and that this observation is not unique - same could be said about many Muslim religious leaders which oppose ISIS.

 

With regard to the last bit - let's try again. It was said that Muslims expressed their outrage over such terrorist attacks, at least partially due to perpetrators claims to carry them out in the name of religion. The observation made was that other instances which were considered by Muslims worldwide to be an affront to Islam, were met with far more salient expressions of outrage. If posters memory needs a jolt, here are some keywords - caricatures, films, books. Interestingly enough, all those non-violent supposed insults to the faith resulted in violent responses, whereas a supposed violent affront to Islam (like terrorist attacks) results in a much milder reaction.

 

It would perhaps be easier for you to follow if you cease mutilating posts into bits, making it harder to reply.

 

 

When I am responding to a post which contains multiple points, as do yours, I find it easier to follow and reply if I break the quotes into the parts I am responding to. Sorry that you consider this to be mutilation! So i wont do so this time.

 

You seem to be saying that both the propaganda of ISIS and the condemnation of ISIS are bogus. Is that right?

 

I'm sorry that I mixed by self references up; but my point remains; I said the worldwide condemnation of ISIS by Muslim leaders, political and religious, could  have an enormous effect; not that it definitely would. I hope that it does, but, if memory serves, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, I also said that it is difficult if not impossible to quantify. Proving that a person committed a terrorist act has been influenced by ISIS is easy, proving that someone going about their normal, peaceful life having rejected ISIS is virtually impossible.

 

Yes, Muslims worldwide have expressed their outrage at perceived affronts to their religion; and at times that outrage has turned to violence by extremists; Charlie Hebdo for example.

 

But when it has, that violence has been condemned:  Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack.

 

But Muslims have also taken to the streets to condemn ISIS, many times in many countries. Such demonstrations are easy to find for those who care to look.

 

 

 

 

 

[GuiseppeD]

2 hours ago, cmsally said:

There seems to be a lot of duplicity involved and I would imagine a lot of people who are aware of what "people want to hear" and what is expedient to say.

In this article

The Times - Killers brother given money ...

 

it seems one of the killers families were actually given money by the police as part of the Prevent programme, which should be funding against radicalisation!

When people are savvy to what should be said and exhibited in public it is very difficult to scrape under the surface.

Great post, cmsally.

 

Notwithstanding, there's the common denominator of unemployment, accepting the taxpayers benefits, criminal records, known to the security services, attempting to travel to Syria or on their way back.  And, finally, they blow our children to smithereens as a thank you.

 

The UK is truly screwed and I'm ashamed to be British.  

[GuiseppeD]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

But Muslims have also taken to the streets to condemn ISIS, many times in many countries. Such demonstrations are easy to find for those who care to look.

Yep, CNN are setting them up for fake news. The remainder are only worried about their benefits.  

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by GuiseppeD

[vogie]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

When I am responding to a post which contains multiple points, as do yours, I find it easier to follow and reply if I break the quotes into the parts I am responding to. Sorry that you consider this to be mutilation! So i wont do so this time.

 

You seem to be saying that both the propaganda of ISIS and the condemnation of ISIS are bogus. Is that right?

 

I'm sorry that I mixed by self references up; but my point remains; I said the worldwide condemnation of ISIS by Muslim leaders, political and religious, could  have an enormous effect; not that it definitely would. I hope that it does, but, if memory serves, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, I also said that it is difficult if not impossible to quantify. Proving that a person committed a terrorist act has been influenced by ISIS is easy, proving that someone going about their normal, peaceful life having rejected ISIS is virtually impossible.

 

Yes, Muslims worldwide have expressed their outrage at perceived affronts to their religion; and at times that outrage has turned to violence by extremists; Charlie Hebdo for example.

 

But when it has, that violence has been condemned:  Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack.

 

But Muslims have also taken to the streets to condemn ISIS, many times in many countries. Such demonstrations are easy to find for those who care to look.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I saw this on the news, definately stage managed, a public relations stunt. Do you think muslims are suddenly getting a conscience? 

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

Yep, CNN are setting them up for fake news. The remainder are only worried about their benefits.  

 

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes I saw this on the news, definately stage managed, a public relations stunt. Do you think muslims are suddenly getting a conscience? 

None of the examples I posted were from the London bridge demonstration which some have accused CNN of setting up.

 

The stills are from massive demonstrations some time ago; the video from Manchester.

 

Those who accuse Muslims of never demonstrating against Islamic terrorism used to have only two ready made excuses when proven wrong:

1. the wrong type of Muslims
2. they're lying.

Now we can add a third: fake news orchestrated by certain sections of the media. No doubt using the services of rent a Muslim!

 

From The Sun: FAKE NEWS ROW CNN slams bizarre online claims that reporter ‘set up’ Muslim anti-terror protest near London Bridge

Quote

.And despite several other news agencies being present, including the BBC and ITV, the user posted the caption: “CNN creating the narrative #FakeNews.”

......both CNN and the London Fatwa Council have denied the crackpot claim that the tribute was staged, reports The Mail Online..........

 

Neither the Sun nor the Mail can in any way shape or form be described as leftie PC Muslim lovers; yet they both call the accusation crackpot!

 

 It is entirely possible that the reporter or cameraman moved the protesters into position to get the best picture; this happens. I remember the same when I was on a picket line many years ago.

 

To say that this proves the whole event was orchestrated is pure nonsense.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

None of the examples I posted were from the London bridge demonstration which some have accused CNN of setting up.

 

The stills are from massive demonstrations some time ago; the video from Manchester.

 

Those who accuse Muslims of never demonstrating against Islamic terrorism used to have only two ready made excuses when proven wrong:

1. the wrong type of Muslims
2. they're lying.

Now we can add a third: fake news orchestrated by certain sections of the media. No doubt using the services of rent a Muslim!

 

From The Sun: FAKE NEWS ROW CNN slams bizarre online claims that reporter ‘set up’ Muslim anti-terror protest near London Bridge

 

Neither the Sun nor the Mail can in any way shape or form be described as leftie PC Muslim lovers; yet they both call the accusation crackpot!

 

 It is entirely possible that the reporter or cameraman moved the protesters into position to get the best picture; this happens. I remember the same when I was on a picket line many years ago.

 

To say that this proves the whole event was orchestrated is pure nonsense.

I don't expect you to say anything different, same old, same old, its actually becoming very repetative, more people on here are more concerned about the dead (total 8 now, a body has just been pulled from the river) than singing the praises of these confused people.

You on a picket line, trying to stop hard working workers to get to their work, say no more.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Thaiwine said:

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.

 

I think you mean "refugee", not migrant. A migrant has permission to stay. A refugee is fleeing danger in their own country and shelter is only till the threat is removed.

 

May has said that she is willing to remove rights. Hopefully she will do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours 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.

I would expect that if that happened, the police would arrest everyone and charge them with infringing his human rights. Seems to me that the British establishment are more concerned about immigrants/ refugees than British citizens.

[saminoz]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Since you have bottled it and refuse to back up your accusations against me with evidence; I shall start with the question posed to you in this post:

That question being: why do you think they (ISIS) 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?

 

I've already repeated that question once; will you answer this time?

I can take this.....  I think that they (Isis) and those like them DO represent the 1.8 Billion Muslims because they say they do!.  

Apart from the "press focused" denials, "soft" condemnations and usual platitudes that are trotted out after these disgusting, vile attacks, I see little from the 1.8 billion Muslims that have convinced me that these a***holes are not enjoying some level of soft protection, if not downright support, from the greater Muslim communities in the UK, but, when you look at the number of Muslims in Europe and look at the number of attacks by these "home-grown", radicalised, bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you, Social Security, ungrateful scroungers, it paints a different story!

 

I can guarantee that  if some deranged, despicable half-witted <deleted> from the Christian community committed a similar offence against the Muslim community, in the name of the Christian religion, the condemnation, hate, recriminations, both verbal and (probably) physical would be extraordinarily visible, heartfelt and very, very immediate and obvious.  

 

This is simply because the Christian faith has matured, evolved ("grown-up", if you like) since the Middle Ages, unlike these backward looking, evil creatures that seemed hell bent on returning the world to a time when they still thought the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Backward trash, for the most part.  Deport them, lock them up or just euthanise them if they are so unhappy living in the UK.

 

I would be at the front of the queue with the bolt, noose, injection or gun to help them along.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

True. The changes are often forced on us by the authorities.

The changes sucking all the enjoyment out of flying were imposed on us, the spying on everything we write or look at on line are imposed on us, having to pay to employ many more police to stand around in tube stations looking bored is imposed on the tax payer.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, saminoz said:

So what?  What do you expect her to say to the press?  "Yes, I was fully supporting him while he was preparing the attack"?  "I thought it was a bit strange when he spent all that time sharpening his big knife, and yet he would never even offer to carve the roast on the weekend"?

I thought it was strange when he ditched his hair gel, grew that godawful straggly face fuzz and seemed fixated on virgins"?

She bore and raised this slime, she should be deported along with the rest of the family.  All benefits dtopped immediately and lla family asets sold to cover deportation expenses, and the balance into a fund for the victims' familes.

I have to say that was funny, I laughed out loud, but may not go down too well with Brothers Grimm. 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Insider info? No, I only have the info published in many media that more than 130 Imams have  refused to conduct Muslim funerals for these murderous scum and are urging all Imams to do the same

.

Hopefully, all Imams will follow their urging.

 

The only reaction from the committed Islamic terrorist to such would be to target those Imams and their followers for being insufficiently Islamic, in their view.

By far the most people killed by Islamic terrorists are other Muslims.

 

IMO, Islam has as much to do with Islamic terrorism as the IRA campaign had to do with Catholicism ie not much. Being identified with a particular religion is just because they are of that religion, but they don't blow up innocents with bombs because of the religion, even if they think it is.

[metisdead]

A number of offensive, inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Some of "these people" were born in the UK, or at least naturalized for quite a while.

You know exactly what I mean. Don't be obtuse.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-40062428

Here are some more of "these people" for reference.

 

[Orton Rd]

Just now, brewsterbudgen said:

All terrorism is wrong. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Failing to do anything about it, or even to admit the causes is almost as bad. May said the terrorists in London were following a perverted version of Islam, this is clearly wrong they were following it to the letter.

[cmsally]

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, cmsally said:

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

Well said! Post of the day; Election  day

[stander]

The British needs to ditch their tradition of having unarmed police. It doesn't serve their citizens well in terms of providing maximum security. 

[transam]

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?

Your tiny fraction of 1.8 billion adds up to thousands, that's why many countries from the west and even Russia are trying to eliminate them wherever they stand with a gun in their hand. These killers are ALL Muslims and following the writings in the Qoran as THEY see it..

 

I have never said they represent the vast majority of Muslims, don't twist stuff, that is something you are good at..

 

Next question...

[superal]

1 hour ago, cmsally said:

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

Most of us see it your way except the UK government . Many politicians too aware of the racist laws to criticise , easier to go with the flow . Muslims are getting involved with UK politics and positions of importance on town councils , also as town mayors . UK employers are forced to provide prayer rooms for muslims and allow them time off to pray during the working day . Not only muslims but Sikhs are exempt from wearing crash helmets on motor bikes and hard hats on construction sites . Muslim Integration with non muslims is not encouraged as part of their religion .                  Having said all that there is a minority of Asians who have integrated well and are part of British society , namely within the medical profession and I am happy that we have them .

[SheungWan]

 

2 hours ago, cmsally said:

While you lot are going back and forth arguing over whether people are British or not, maybe take a thought beyond a tag of nationality whether by birthright or naturalisation.

The issue that no one in politics seems willing to address is the cultural aspect of being British. Politicians have been so busy espousing the concept of multiculturalism, the concept of British culture has been left somewhere behind. If arrivals to the UK truly integrated I don't think there would have been a problem. But here we have a culture that mostly is the antithesis of what is British and has not integrated. Not only that, but parts of that culture have declared themselves at war with the host country. Until those in power can decide whether the British culture is worth standing up for then the problem will persist; even then they will have a problem dealing with it as it has got to such an advanced stage.

For that argument to be valid one would have to show that all non-integrated cultures are prone to terrorism, but they aren't are they? Just this one. Not only that but Islamist Terrorism is not just a feature of non-integration in the UK but is an international phenomenon so we can throw the cod sociology right back in the bin.