Incident at Parsons Green Tube station

[drew]

Did you read anything of what i had to say or do you just pretend otherwise and make sh*t up as you go along. for the record I highlighted in big capital letters the words NOT ALL.

You'd have me sent away making up false allegations like that...and tbh i'd expect nothing less from someone who worships the ground the ob walk on..

Jesus you are really up your own arse.

You imply that people think arming the Police will stop terrorism when nobody has said that. You seem to think the poll of the Met Police was indicative they all wanted guns which was far from the truth.

You bang on about Paris riots but don't make reference to which ones to back up your argument. I'm guessing (I have to guess as you don't provide any info) that what you are suggesting is that there were Paris riots that arose due to the Police shooting innocent people. Well I can't find reference to that but you repeatedly won't provide a link. Don't seem to see any comment from you with regard to how much worse the Paris attacks in Nov 15 would have been had the Police not been armed.

I would suggest the vast majority of people in this country do not have issues with the Police. I've not doubt there are some innocent people that have fallen foul but the vast majority of those that I have seen seem to invite problems for themselves. I have every sympathy for the likes of Jean Charles de Menezes and as he was totally innocent but if you look at all the other deaths at the hands of the Police then judging by this list from wiki, they were all doing something that put them into conflict. Not sure but apart from JC de Menezes, none of them are wholly innocent. That doesn't mean they deserved to die but their actions put them into a position where that was a possibility, whether because they knew exactly what they were doing, were intoxicated, drugged up or were suffering from mental health issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._Kingdom#Multiple_deaths_in_a_single_incident

Yes, I do read your rantings. So you put in capitals 'NOT ALL' but the way you go on suggests you think it is the majority.

 

[Baker lite]

No, because you actually swallow this idea that they "knew nothing about it " , remember the 3 girls from Bethnal Green who joined Isis , the father was pictured tearfully holding her teddy bear, the week after that pictures surfaced of him at a rally burning an American flag , alongside extremist Islamic preachers , I'm not sure why you're so naive.

Not to mention that piece of filth from saltdean who spent his holidays collecting butterflies in the Tora Bora,seem to remember the Argus having an appeal to get that scumbag out of Guantanamo,didn't a couple of His nephews get vaporised by a US drone somewhere?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Acker79]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html

https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.c...nt-blurring-of-facts-on-muslims-and-islamism/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/

I note Trevor Phillips has been excommunicated from the Islington/Guardianista set for his heresy.

Just so I'm clear, you're response to an article that essentially says 'look at all these people saying "you can't talk about muslims" when that's all we ever seem to talk about' is to show a few more articles talking about muslims? One regarding an incident that has led to so many hundreds of articles about muslims, one a blog from three years ago relating specifically to an article trying to argue a lot of stories around at the time were scare stories (note for this to come up people must have been writing about muslims at the time - is wanting to separate fact from fiction a bad thing in journalism?), the third an article from 2016 which was covered in the guardian earlier this year to help Phillips promote his TV show covering muslims, all of which supports the general basis of the article I posted.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Just so I'm clear, you're response to an article that essentially says 'look at all these people saying "you can't talk about muslims" when that's all we ever seem to talk about' is to show a few more articles talking about muslims? One regarding an incident that has led to so many hundreds of articles about muslims, one a blog from three years ago relating specifically to an article trying to argue a lot of stories around at the time were scare stories (note for this to come up people must have been writing about muslims at the time - is wanting to separate fact from fiction a bad thing in journalism?), the third an article from 2016 which was covered in the guardian earlier this year to help Phillips promote his TV show covering muslims, all of which supports the general basis of the article I posted.

An article saying "you can't talk about muslims" that didn't give one exampe of anyone actually saying we can't talk about Muslims let alone immigration, race etc.

The first link showed an example of what happens when 'cultural sensitivities' (not talking about Muslims) overides public protection so this was/is a very real issue.

The second link shows she has form writing this rubbish.

The third showed even a former darling of the Islington set can't hide from the truth anymore.

 

[BadFish]

You forget one thing though, all of the cowards who have blown themselves up over the past couple of years were at one stage innocent people, no matter how far you back in their life they were, if they are not here then they cant kill us.

You are definitely on to something here, punishing people for the potential to commit crime is the answer. Why wait until they have actually done it? This way we get the perpetrators (well potentially) and have no victims. All we need to do is identify the factors that cause people to commit crime and arrest everyone who has them...... And doesn't because they can potentially be developed.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[brighton fella]

Jesus you are really up your own arse.

You imply that people think arming the Police will stop terrorism when nobody has said that. You seem to think the poll of the Met Police was indicative they all wanted guns which was far from the truth.

You bang on about Paris riots but don't make reference to which ones to back up your argument. I'm guessing (I have to guess as you don't provide any info) that what you are suggesting is that there were Paris riots that arose due to the Police shooting innocent people. Well I can't find reference to that but you repeatedly won't provide a link. Don't seem to see any comment from you with regard to how much worse the Paris attacks in Nov 15 would have been had the Police not been armed.

I would suggest the vast majority of people in this country do not have issues with the Police. I've not doubt there are some innocent people that have fallen foul but the vast majority of those that I have seen seem to invite problems for themselves. I have every sympathy for the likes of Jean Charles de Menezes and as he was totally innocent but if you look at all the other deaths at the hands of the Police then judging by this list from wiki, they were all doing something that put them into conflict. Not sure but apart from JC de Menezes, none of them are wholly innocent. That doesn't mean they deserved to die but their actions put them into a position where that was a possibility, whether because they knew exactly what they were doing, were intoxicated, drugged up or were suffering from mental health issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._Kingdom#Multiple_deaths_in_a_single_incident

Yes, I do read your rantings. So you put in capitals 'NOT ALL' but the way you go on suggests you think it is the majority.

The way i go on is because i feel strongly about the subject in hand. Under your discretion would that be considered a shootable offense because by the way you bang on about it anyone would think it was

Lets make this perfectly clear because quite clearly you don't seem to comprehend it.
(1) I did not say ALL ob are psychopathic lunatics I said a lot were.
(2) I had said encase you hadn't noticed that armed response units should only be called upon in an absolute emergency and when all other options fail. in simpler terms guns should not be used for the
sake of it.
(3) As regards the Paris riots I wasn't refering to one specific riot I was merely pointing out the consequences of having armed units deployed on the streets and the intimidation it brings with it upon the public. I don't even have to see the footage to know that the riots in one way or another were provocation by the ob. the thing is when you have been involved as much as i have you come to learn how these things escalate and i can assure you that more times than not it is the workings of a heavy handed police force.
Anyway mate you stick to what you want but remember one thing.. don't start crying when sh*t starts to land on your doorstep, because that my friend is part and parcel of a police state.

 

[WSU Dilettante]

If a member of their family blows themselves up killing people or any other type of murder by their hands, running people over, stabbing etc, then that family gets deported.

And the Mosque, they or their family pray in gets knocked down.

Then and only then you might get other people from the Mosque denouncing them publicly.

And if they're atheist? Or Christian. Like that bloke who ran muslims over outside their mosque? Shall we go knock his church down?

You can't punish innocent people because someone they happen to be related to, through no fault of their own, decided to commit an act of terrorism.

Do you actually think any of these things you say through?

 

[drew]

The way i go on is because i feel strongly about the subject in hand. Under your discretion would that be considered a shootable offense because by the way you bang on about it anyone would think it was

Lets make this perfectly clear because quite clearly you don't seem to comprehend it.
(1) I did not say ALL ob are psychopathic lunatics I said a lot were.
(2) I had said encase you hadn't noticed that armed response units should only be called upon in an absolute emergency and when all other options fail. in simpler terms guns should not be used for the
sake of it.
(3) As regards the Paris riots I wasn't refering to one specific riot I was merely pointing out the consequences of having armed units deployed on the streets and the intimidation it brings with it upon the public. I don't even have to see the footage to know that the riots in one way or another were provocation by the ob. the thing is when you have been involved as much as i have you come to learn how these things escalate and i can assure you that more times than not it is the workings of a heavy handed police force.
Anyway mate you stick to what you want but remember one thing.. don't start crying when sh*t starts to land on your doorstep, because that my friend is part and parcel of a police state.

Don't armed response units only get called upon in emergency situations? Recent terrorist attacks in London show that. If there is a threat they need to respond, whether that is a terrorist threat or some deranged individual like Moat! However, let's look at the actual stats.

There were a total of 14,753 police firearms operations in the year ending March 2016; this represents a slight increase of 68 (0.5%) police firearms operations when compared with the previous year.

In the year ending March 2016, 85% of firearms operations involved Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), compared with 84% in the previous year.

There were seven incidents in which police discharged firearms in the year ending March 2016, up from six incidents in the previous year.

There were 5,639 authorized firearms officers (AFOs) on 31 March 2016; a decrease of eight AFOs when compared with the previous year.


Taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cs-england-and-wales-april-2015-to-march-2016

So in 14,753 operations (which I assume means more than one armed officer was deployed in each operation) on only 6 occasions was a firearm actually fired. Hardly shows a correlations with your assertion we are surrounded by a lot of trigger happy lunatics. Furthermore, in the preceding 7 years the number of operations had dropped by over 8,000.


I hear what you say about Paris riots but how do you explain the riots we have seen in the UK going back to the 80s when we don't have armed Police? And, how can you be credible if you admit you have already made your mind up about those Paris riots being because of Police provocation when you haven't seen any evidence!

Finally, we are a long way from becoming a police state. We don't test fire missiles over our neighbours territory, we don't shoot down passenger aircraft and last time I checked we have free elections.

 

[cunning fergus]

And if they're atheist? Or Christian. Like that bloke who ran muslims over outside their mosque? Shall we go knock his church down?

You can't punish innocent people because someone they happen to be related to, through no fault of their own, decided to commit an act of terrorism.

Do you actually think any of these things you say through?

I'm pretty sure that if this country was suffering regular acts of terrorism from extremist atheists or Christian's, there would be similar views expressed which would mean that the wider communities of tolerant and non violent atheists and christians would be detrimentally (and unfairly) affected.

This dynamic is not new, in the 70s-90s football fans were all largely treated as trouble makers despite relatively speaking only a small proportion of football fans being involved in hooliganism. In cracking down on hooliganism the Govt did not care that additional security measures would mean that the wider and larger cohort of innocent football fans would be affected. After each event of hooliganism there was no narrative from politicians that most football fans were law abiding, not a bit of it, football fans had to just suck it up.

The consequences of this new (because it is new) wave of Islamic terrorism are affecting all of the citizens in this country, means that additional security measures (such as more Govt surveillance or more armed police on our streets) will affect non Muslim and Muslim alike.

This is all very well up to a point, but the root cause of Islamic terrorism is in the Muslim community, whether settled for a couple of generations or newly arrived. To get a grip on the threat, the Govt will (and no doubt is) focusing effort in that community.......this will mean innocent muslims will be affected.

If the public think that the Govt is not addressing the root cause, then expect more people like the individual you highlighted in your post to take the law into their own hands. There is a difference between cause and affect.

 

[spence]

I'm pretty sure that if this country was suffering regular acts of terrorism from extremist atheists or Christian's, there would be similar views expressed which would mean that the wider communities of tolerant and non violent atheists and christians would be detrimentally (and unfairly) affected.

This dynamic is not new, in the 70s-90s football fans were all largely treated as trouble makers despite relatively speaking only a small proportion of football fans being involved in hooliganism. In cracking down on hooliganism the Govt did not care that additional security measures would mean that the wider and larger cohort of innocent football fans would be affected. After each event of hooliganism there was no narrative from politicians that most football fans were law abiding, not a bit of it, football fans had to just suck it up.

The consequences of this new (because it is new) wave of Islamic terrorism are affecting all of the citizens in this country, means that additional security measures (such as more Govt surveillance or more armed police on our streets) will affect non Muslim and Muslim alike.

This is all very well up to a point, but the root cause of Islamic terrorism is in the Muslim community, whether settled for a couple of generations or newly arrived. To get a grip on the threat, the Govt will (and no doubt is) focusing effort in that community.......this will mean innocent muslims will be affected.

If the public think that the Govt is not addressing the root cause, then expect more people like the individual you highlighted in your post to take the law into their own hands. There is a difference between cause and affect.

Not sure if i read this correctly(it was a while ago) [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] but if a Palestinian/Arab was involved in terrorism the whole family was booted out of Israel ? This heavy handed approach certainly had an effect

 

[cunning fergus]

Not sure if i read this correctly(it was a while ago) [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] but if a Palestinian/Arab was involved in terrorism the whole family was booted out of Israel ? This heavy handed approach certainly had an effect

Sure, and there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

I think broadly speaking whilst it may be effective the general public would baulk at forced repatriation by the state, whereas this would be voluntary if the Govt forced through a reformation of Islam in the UK.

The UK Govt has "sponsored" the CoE in recent years to become more liberal, and that is what's needed now with Islam. Registering Mosques (so they are state sponsored) could mean that a more liberal form of Islam is preached to UK muslims, then there can be gay Imams, women Imams transgender Imams (and other sections of British society) all becoming part of the Islamic liturgy.......I'm sure that this will be fine for the tolerant and peace loving cohort of British muslims.

Those that want to celebrate a more toxic form of Islam can find an alternative Islamic country, if that is what is important to them.

Simples.

 

[The Gem]

AH yes i've seen the interview with the ex-soldier where you got this idea from.

The problem is here that you just want blind retribution for a single person's actions. Unless they have also committed a crime, the family/friends/mosque-mates of the terrorist are just as liable for attacks as you or I.

If your brother or sister goes out and murders multiple people, should you have your life destroyed because of it? Or does that just cause more unjust misery?



Do you just not pay attention or do you only get your news from right-wing facebook pages? All you see after terrorist attacks is mosque leaders or people from the attackers' community denouncing them publicly.

I didn't take any idea from anyone, for me, enough is enough.

Regarding the Mosque, my point exactly, the only time you hear them is AFTER the attack, they don't say boo about any of it outside an attack. they are NEVER on the news or in the other media saying these people should be hung etc.They pay us lip service when it suits them.

They should be rising up against the terrorist ALL of the time, not when it makes them look good on TV.

I cant believe for 1 second that each and every one of them isn't know by their own already. EVERY single one come on man.

 

[The Gem]

And if they're atheist? Or Christian. Like that bloke who ran muslims over outside their mosque? Shall we go knock his church down?

You can't punish innocent people because someone they happen to be related to, through no fault of their own, decided to commit an act of terrorism.

Do you actually think any of these things you say through?

All I know is, I am sick to the back teeth of turning on the TV and yet again more have bitten the hand that feeds them.

At the moment other than being locked up if they are caught at our expense, there is NO attempt of a deterrent.

Unless we play hard ball, there never will be.

If they take my family out, then I am all for taking theirs out.

That goes for any one who attacks my family.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

All I know is, I am sick to the back teeth of turning on the TV and yet again more have bitten the hand that feeds them.

At the moment other than being locked up if they are caught at our expense, there is NO attempt of a deterrent.

Unless we play hard ball, there never will be.

If they take my family out, then I am all for taking theirs out.

That goes for any one who attacks my family.

An eye for an eye then the whole world becomes blind.

Our anti terrorist force is doing a good job of preventing many attacks. I see court cases where undercover work, assisted by the Muslim communities, have given information to the security forces.

Don't label every Muslim with identical ideology. Not all Asians are Muslim. My Iranian friend is a Christian, but could get caught up in your version of 'ethnic cleansing'.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't judge me because I feel so strongly about these people killing innocent people across the world.

For ever one person who might disagree, you will find 2 who don't.

I say how I feel, its a pity others don't.

You believe in punishing innocent people then ? Tell you what, if you do anything wrong then I'll go and beat your mother and father ! Idiot !!!!!

 

[The Gem]

An eye for an eye then the whole world becomes blind.

Our anti terrorist force is doing a good job of preventing many attacks. I see court cases where undercover work, assisted by the Muslim communities, have given information to the security forces.

Don't label every Muslim with identical ideology. Not all Asians are Muslim. My Iranian friend is a Christian, but could get caught up in your version of 'ethnic cleansing'.

The world would not become blind, however if it did it would be much safer.

You would be able to get on the tube without looking at every person carrying a backpack.

 

[The Gem]

You believe in punishing innocent people then ? Tell you what, if you do anything wrong then I'll go and beat your mother and father ! Idiot !!!!!

Everyone is innocent at some stage in their life.

Why am I an idiot? Because I have a different view to you?

Who is the idiot, the person with a different view, or the person who calls the person with a different view an idiot?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The world would not become blind, however if it did it would be much safer.

You would be able to get on the tube without looking at every person carrying a backpack.

I do.

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a terrorist attack. You are over emphasising the dangers.
We've been through this before with the IRA, and other terror attacks. Seventy seven years ago, London and over big cities were being bombed on a regular basis, but people still got on with their daily lives.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Everyone is innocent at some stage in their life.

What kind of idiotic, brainless, stupid response is that ? I'll simplify it for you, if you get kicked out the Amex by the stewards I'd like to see all your mates kicked out and banned as well. Fair ? After all, they must have known beforehand what a knob you were.

 

[The Gem]

Seventy seven years ago, London and over big cities were being bombed on a regular basis, but people still got on with their daily lives.

Now that I agree with 100%.

However, there was a slight difference, kind of a warning system that allowed the innocent people to take cover.

We also retaliated otherwise we would probably all speak German now.

There was a war, is the fight against these terrorists not a war?