Tommy Robinson serial criminal jailed again

[GT49er]

My argument is already validated

Tommy Robinson uses the phrase ''ALL Terrorists are Muslims'' - I have already shown this not to be true - I have given you Anders Brevik, David Copeland, Darren Osborne, the current terror attack in Chechnya. I could add the Dutch Aline shot down over the Ukraine a few years ago. I could go on because there are terror attacks in Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela and other South American countries which are drug related and commited against Authorities in those countriesbut not committed by Muslims. Those two guys in the US who randomly shot people ''sniper style''

The list could go on.

..............................................or not, if we are just talking about the UK, threats to the UK being what this thread generally is about. In which case your list comprises two names, one of which is such a pathetic terrorist that he's only managed to get charged with attempted murder (thankfully)!

 

[NooBHA]

..............................................or not, if we are just talking about the UK, threats to the UK being what this thread generally is about. In which case your list comprises two names, one of which is such a pathetic terrorist that he's only managed to get charged with attempted murder (thankfully)!

Thankfully ?

Why Thankfully ?

Oh yeah I forgot . For some people, the lives of non whites or non westrners are ''cheap'' - Well not to me they aren't

 

[Buzzer]

Thankfully ?

Why Thankfully ?

Oh yeah I forgot . For some people, the lives of non whites or non westrners are ''cheap'' - Well not to me they aren't

Err...It's quite clear (to me anyway) that he's thankful that it's attempted murder as opposed to murder because it means that no-one has died.

 

[GT49er]

Thankfully ?

Why Thankfully ?

Oh yeah I forgot . For some people, the lives of non whites or non westrners are ''cheap'' - Well not to me they aren't

Wow - strong contender for the most stupid reply I've ever had to a post. Anybody in their right mind would be glad that the charge is 'attempted murder' as opposed to murder. If you attempt to murder someone, but do not succeed in actually murdering them, they don't die......which to most people would be a good thing, don't you think?

 

[NooBHA]

Err...It's quite clear (to me anyway) that he's thankful that it's attempted murder as opposed to murder because it means that no-one has died.

Not according to the 6pm news tonight it isn't. The mas who died, his injuries are consistent with having be run over

 

[Buzzer]

Not according to the 6pm news tonight it isn't. The mas who died, his injuries are consistent with having be run over

Okay. Very sad news but GT49er, just like me, was unaware of that and it doesn't take away at all from how you've monumentally misunderstood his post.

 

[GT49er]

Okay. Very sad news but GT49er, just like me, was unaware of that and it doesn't take away at all from how you've monumentally misunderstood his post.

Well said. Cheers.

 

[wellquickwoody]

My argument is already validated

Tommy Robinson uses the phrase ''ALL Terrorists are Muslims'' - I have already shown this not to be true - I have given you Anders Brevik, David Copeland, Darren Osborne, the current terror attack in Chechnya. I could add the Dutch Aline shot down over the Ukraine a few years ago. I could go on because there are terror attacks in Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela and other South American countries which are drug related and commited against Authorities in those countriesbut not committed by Muslims. Those two guys in the US who randomly shot people ''sniper style''

The list could go on. Even the Tutsi/ Hutu Genocide in 1994 in Rwanda. We have terror attacks even now in South Sudan and there many other African wars against the State in those countries going on which are not linked to Muslims

I am not the one who made an unsubstantiated statement. My argument is clear. Tommy Robinson statement is incorrect and there are hundreds of terror attacks by Non Muslims every year. Just because it suits Western Media to report more of the Muslim Terror attacks does not mean that there are more.

All terror attacks are just as bad as each other. I don't differentiate. People like Tommy Robinson do even though what he quotes is inaccurate.

You sweep the discussion back under the carpet if it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside if you must. There is a problem to be solved and it will not happen by hugging your next door neighbour who might be a Muslim. I really cannot be bothered with those who refuse to look outside of their blinkered world anymore, but I will not be cowed by the weak to stop saying truths that they find uncomfortable.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Xyz

 

[darkwolf666]

Genocide etc etc
Is that what you think of him ??

If you listen to him speak he is factually correct of don't you like that either

Factually correct? Examples please!'

 

[Audax]

Right, let us get this straight, I do not believe all Muslims are terrorists, there are many, many positively good Muslim people. But we need to talk about this issue as the refusal to do so over the last 20 years has led us to where we are now. The hundreds of attacks by Islamic extremists, killing both Muslims and non Muslims, have been carried out 'in the name of Allah', you know, the prophet bloke that Muslims worship. The wankers who carry out these attacks are not good/proper/normal Muslims, they are wankers hiding under the flag of Islam and/or are brainwashed by other wankers hiding under the flag of Islam. Are you beginning to see the link here? Not all Muslims are jihadis, in fact very few are jihadis, but there is also a sizeable minority of the remaining Muslim population that silently support the jihadis. 10/20/30 per cent maybe, who knows? But if that 10% is of population of 2 million Muslims then that is 200,000 silent supporters, if the jihadis are only 0.5% of the same population that is 10,000 possible terrorists! How can we identify these people in the first instance if we ignore the common denominator amongst them?

The point I was trying to make, and that you're still ignoring, is that part of the problem of dealing with "Extremist Islamic Terrorism" effectively is that we're still calling it "Islamic". Just because those wanker extremists *claim* to be Islamic and working in the name of Allah is irrelevant. They aren't Islamic, they aren't representing Allah.

The starting point to undermining the extremists' position is to strip them of the symbology they use to attempt to give themselves legitimacy and prop up their propaganda campaigns. Ergo; they are NOT Islamic, and they are NOT acting in the name of Allah, and their fighters will NOT benefit from an eternal afterlife ... regardless of what they might claim.

I would dearly love for the media to stop referring to these wankers as Islamic Extremists, or IS, or ISIS, ISIL, or any of the other terms that by inclusion of "Islamic" lend some form of default legitimacy to them. Find some other term to call them by, and make it one that recognises that these sickos are NOT following any valid religious path (be it Islamic, Catholic, or Pastafarian). By doing so we'll make it easier for the true followers or Islam to also denounce and undermine them, without worrying about any potential blow-back on their own beliefs.

 

[GT49er]

Okay. Very sad news but GT49er, just like me, was unaware of that and it doesn't take away at all from how you've monumentally misunderstood his post.

And sadly still no hint of an apology for the implied accusation of racism in the wildly ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction post. I'm rather disappointed in a poster I thought better of than that, tbh.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The point I was trying to make, and that you're still ignoring, is that part of the problem of dealing with "Extremist Islamic Terrorism" effectively is that we're still calling it "Islamic". Just because those wanker extremists *claim* to be Islamic and working in the name of Allah is irrelevant. They aren't Islamic, they aren't representing Allah.

The starting point to undermining the extremists' position is to strip them of the symbology they use to attempt to give themselves legitimacy and prop up their propaganda campaigns. Ergo; they are NOT Islamic, and they are NOT acting in the name of Allah, and their fighters will NOT benefit from an eternal afterlife ... regardless of what they might claim.

I would dearly love for the media to stop referring to these wankers as Islamic Extremists, or IS, or ISIS, ISIL, or any of the other terms that by inclusion of "Islamic" lend some form of default legitimacy to them. Find some other term to call them by, and make it one that recognises that these sickos are NOT following any valid religious path (be it Islamic, Catholic, or Pastafarian). By doing so we'll make it easier for the true followers or Islam to also denounce and undermine them, without worrying about any potential blow-back on their own beliefs.

What would you suggest? Brown? Beige? Fawn? Asian? Middle Eastern? Indonesian? Wahabbi? Shia?

We can go around this hundreds of times, the common denominator is Muslim. And before any limp leftie **** starts, no, not all Muslims are terrorists!

 

[Audax]

What would you suggest? Brown? Beige? Fawn? Asian? Middle Eastern? Indonesian? Wahabbi? Shia?

As flippant as you might want to be, it's actually not that hard. There was a drive at one point to use "Daesh" for IS, as it is thought to be very unliked by the groups leadership. It's derived from an acronym that essentially means the same as ISIS does, but the construction of Daesh means it's a more derogatory variation than ISIS.

We can go around this hundreds of times, the common denominator is Muslim. And before any limp leftie **** starts, no, not all Muslims are terrorists!

No, it isn't. The common denominator is that they are ****ing broken in the head, in the same way that a far-right white supremacist is ****ing broken in the head.

In the USA, there was a report prepared for Congress looking at deaths in that country from extremist terrorists in the last 15 years. The verdict? In just two years were more people killed by Islamic terrorists than by far-right white supremacists. In 3 years, the number of deaths was the same. In 10 out of the 15 years far-right white supremacists killed more people than Islamic extremists. The reason you don't hear about it is because the white supremacist incidents get swept under the carpet and labelled as crimes of "mental ill-health", along with a general trend for Islamic extremist attacks to be less frequent but more deadly when they do happen.

Oh, and it's got nothing to do with left or right. It's to do with educating yourself and recognising that it's not religion that's driving these people (regardless of what religion they might claim).

 

[carlzeiss]

The point I was trying to make, and that you're still ignoring, is that part of the problem of dealing with "Extremist Islamic Terrorism" effectively is that we're still calling it "Islamic". Just because those wanker extremists *claim* to be Islamic and working in the name of Allah is irrelevant. They aren't Islamic, they aren't representing Allah.

The starting point to undermining the extremists' position is to strip them of the symbology they use to attempt to give themselves legitimacy and prop up their propaganda campaigns. Ergo; they are NOT Islamic, and they are NOT acting in the name of Allah, and their fighters will NOT benefit from an eternal afterlife ... regardless of what they might claim.

I would dearly love for the media to stop referring to these wankers as Islamic Extremists, or IS, or ISIS, ISIL, or any of the other terms that by inclusion of "Islamic" lend some form of default legitimacy to them. Find some other term to call them by, and make it one that recognises that these sickos are NOT following any valid religious path (be it Islamic, Catholic, or Pastafarian). By doing so we'll make it easier for the true followers or Islam to also denounce and undermine them, without worrying about any potential blow-back on their own beliefs.

So who are the true followers of Islam ?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The point I was trying to make, and that you're still ignoring, is that part of the problem of dealing with "Extremist Islamic Terrorism" effectively is that we're still calling it "Islamic". Just because those wanker extremists *claim* to be Islamic and working in the name of Allah is irrelevant. They aren't Islamic, they aren't representing Allah.

The starting point to undermining the extremists' position is to strip them of the symbology they use to attempt to give themselves legitimacy and prop up their propaganda campaigns. Ergo; they are NOT Islamic, and they are NOT acting in the name of Allah, and their fighters will NOT benefit from an eternal afterlife ... regardless of what they might claim.

I would dearly love for the media to stop referring to these wankers as Islamic Extremists, or IS, or ISIS, ISIL, or any of the other terms that by inclusion of "Islamic" lend some form of default legitimacy to them. Find some other term to call them by, and make it one that recognises that these sickos are NOT following any valid religious path (be it Islamic, Catholic, or Pastafarian). By doing so we'll make it easier for the true followers or Islam to also denounce and undermine them, without worrying about any potential blow-back on their own beliefs.

I'm not sure you will have much credibility when claiming you know that IS fighters will not have an eternal after life. The whole point about religion is that it is all about faith and your claims are no more or less credible than those of the terrorists themselves. They believe in Islam and therefore they are Muslims. Your 'true version' of religion is quite a recent invention and bares little resemblance to the last 2000 years or so of bloody and socially repressive interpretation of mainstream religion whether it be Christian or Islamic. Sure there has been a makeover in recent decades of which even Tony Blair would be proud but that shouldn't distract from the reality of these medieval cults.

 

[wellquickwoody]

As flippant as you might want to be, it's actually not that hard. There was a drive at one point to use "Daesh" for IS, as it is thought to be very unliked by the groups leadership. It's derived from an acronym that essentially means the same as ISIS does, but the construction of Daesh means it's a more derogatory variation than ISIS.




No, it isn't. The common denominator is that they are ****ing broken in the head, in the same way that a far-right white supremacist is ****ing broken in the head.

In the USA, there was a report prepared for Congress looking at deaths in that country from extremist terrorists in the last 15 years. The verdict? In just two years were more people killed by Islamic terrorists than by far-right white supremacists. In 3 years, the number of deaths was the same. In 10 out of the 15 years far-right white supremacists killed more people than Islamic extremists. The reason you don't hear about it is because the white supremacist incidents get swept under the carpet and labelled as crimes of "mental ill-health", along with a general trend for Islamic extremist attacks to be less frequent but more deadly when they do happen.

Oh, and it's got nothing to do with left or right. It's to do with educating yourself and recognising that it's not religion that's driving these people (regardless of what religion they might claim).

Head, sand, insert

 

[rocker959]

Head, sand, insert

Seconded . Wake up Britain ffs

 

[symyjym]

Another hate preacher or fact teller?

https://youtu.be/GA8Otsxrc94

 

[carlzeiss]

[yt]TjkfvJl1e9s&feature=player_embedded[/YT]