What's new

22nd March, 2017 : Attack on Houses of Parliament [PICTURES]

Okay I think you are not able to comprehend it in a concise way so i'll elaborate.

I did not "Deliberately" left that out , I said "probably for good reasons" - Is not relevant to what I had said. Whether good reasons / bad reasons / terrible reasons / practical /impractical reasons - is not what I am talking about.

You wrote :
"I get the feeling that there's a lot more that the authorities are not telling us - probably for good reasons. -"

I had raised the point that for whatever the reason , the feeling that something is being hidden does not sound plausible.
Then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself. Of course there's a possibility, nay a probability, that the authorities are not telling us everything, and probably for very good reasons. As an example, even though they knew the identity of the attacker very quickly (even if only via the car hire company who apparently phoned the police when they saw the reg plates on the tv), the police did not tell the public until much later. Besides, they are not going to give a running commentary on everything they discover, especially since it may compromise their methods. So yes, the authorities will not tell us everything, and probably for very good reasons
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Metropolitan Police says a 75-year-old man has died from injuries he suffered during the Westminster terror attack</p>— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/845022018181435393">March 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Mate, I am not a political expert nor can I design a step by step guide , I do however can see what's obviously wrong and point it out what I think is the underlying problem. If you choose to ignore it or not see it , that's your call. Nothing Fuzzy about what I'v written above.
I am not sure if inclusion , acceptance and tolerance are "fuzzy" words to you but they are quite self explanatory.

But you are the one who is saying the underlying problem needs to be changed, the problem which according to you is the notion that waging war on non-Muslims is desirable. If that is the case, you can only address it by specifying where the problem stems from. Maybe it is by stopping 'that guy Afridi' from proselytising to Darren Sammy. So far that seems to be your most concrete suggestion. Personally I think that is unlikely to make much difference. Maybe we could remove Afridi's car keys to lessen the chances of him mowing Sammy down in a 4x4. Is that what you were hinting at?
 
What's wrong with you? You have a problem with the coverage on a terror attack? Why should it not be covered? What really makes you uncomfortable? The coverage or the questions about how these people continue to exist in society without anyone noticing something wrong?

You probably need to get off your high horse and stop taking terror coverage as victimisation of a community. And really stop comparing Islamic terrorism with the IRA. What cause are these terrorists representing?

Pure Evil please deploy your reading skills for once. Nobody says it shouldn"t be covered it all. I'm saying is the coverage must be PROPORTIONATE. BBC News and Sky are still stuck on this story. Why is unconfirmed news being reported as breaking news ? Why jump to conclusions when investigations are ongoing ?

The massive publicity creates the illusion that these terrorists are having a bigger impact on society than they actually do. This emboldens them and inspires further attacks in a similar way as US mass shooters because they crave the limelight.

I'm old enough to remember the IRA attacks in the 1990s, a time when 24 hr news became popularised, and they didn't receive this wall to wall coverage despite the IRA being responsible for far more UK civilian deaths. This isn't 9/11, 7/7 or Paris. We have to continue our lives unless you want us to cower in fear for the next six months. Violence occurs in countries all the time but stick an ideology on it and suddenly its 24/7 headline news.

The coverage or the questions about how these people continue to exist in society without anyone noticing something wrong?
What discussion do we need to have about "these people existing in our society" ? You cannot stop every sick, violent lone wolf wanting to act out their vile fantasies. Shall we stop all cars being driven in the city of London ? Shall we institute a Muslim driving ban ? We must eradicate Islamic fundamentalism, but non-stop fearmongering won't defeat it.

But your rush to raise such questions after this tragedy is intriguing as I didn't see you racing to question "these people in society" when a far-right thug murdered an MP in broad daylight last year ? Or when James Harris Jackson stabbed a black man to death in Manhattan this month in the name of white supremacy ? Are these self-righteous fits of fury only for those who aren't your ideological brethren ?
 
How much coverage has this racist terrorist attack received ?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">White Army veteran, suspected in sword killing of black man, went to New York to carry out racist attack, police say <a href="https://t.co/JZH8HF5MNe">https://t.co/JZH8HF5MNe</a> <a href="https://t.co/MPvtthYuLk">pic.twitter.com/MPvtthYuLk</a></p>— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/844707196357283846">23 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
How much coverage has this racist terrorist attack received ?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">White Army veteran, suspected in sword killing of black man, went to New York to carry out racist attack, police say <a href="https://t.co/JZH8HF5MNe">https://t.co/JZH8HF5MNe</a> <a href="https://t.co/MPvtthYuLk">pic.twitter.com/MPvtthYuLk</a></p>— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) <a href="https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/844707196357283846">23 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It's not my country why should I care? and why do you?
 
It's really frustrating when people do this what about this thing...

Lets put things in perspective...

Of those dead...one was Spanish, one was American...among those injured many were tourists like Koreans...the girl in the river was a Romanian...

I have not heard one person express a different opinion once the identity of the victims came out...

The fact is as someone who walks that route that this was an attack on people like me...a Londoner...that is what hit home...am I saying other lives dont matter?...no but an attack in my city is obviously gonna bother me more...

Its like saying gays are bigoted because they might have felt extra for what happened in Orlando...

Or Pakistanis for caring more about Peshawar...

Noone reasonable here would tell you who to care for...or try and make someone feel guilty for caring about one cause over another...

Just seems to be some pathetic trend lately...the 'why does noone talk about this' obsession...

If you want more awareness for somewhere else then raise it...
 
But you are the one who is saying the underlying problem needs to be changed, the problem which according to you is the notion that waging war on non-Muslims is desirable. If that is the case, you can only address it by specifying where the problem stems from. Maybe it is by stopping 'that guy Afridi' from proselytising to Darren Sammy. So far that seems to be your most concrete suggestion. Personally I think that is unlikely to make much difference. Maybe we could remove Afridi's car keys to lessen the chances of him mowing Sammy down in a 4x4. Is that what you were hinting at?

Ofcourse the underlying problem needs to be addressed , I am not denying that.
Would I be able to do it ? Quite possibly no.
Do I know exactly what to do ? Quite Possibly no.
Do I know what the problem is ? - Quite possibly yes ( look in my previous posts to see what point's iv raised)
The Afridi guy is an example .
Possible solutions ? - Overhauling the education system , Teaching tolerance , acceptance would be a good start.
 

You know what your problem is Magneto? you too busy trying to prove we do not have a mutant problem but in the process you demonize us at the same time, in addition it's the only craving you develop rather then feeling anything for the victims of our country who get killed in such tragedies because it's never the first thought which comes to your head, sure mutants are horrified during these attacks and also look on with extra anxiety due to the mutant phobia a fair amount of people have and that is understandable but we must rise above that and stand together; LOVE will trump HATE inevitably.
 
It's really frustrating when people do this what about this thing...

Lets put things in perspective...

Of those dead...one was Spanish, one was American...among those injured many were tourists like Koreans...the girl in the river was a Romanian...

I have not heard one person express a different opinion once the identity of the victims came out...

The fact is as someone who walks that route that this was an attack on people like me...a Londoner...that is what hit home...am I saying other lives dont matter?...no but an attack in my city is obviously gonna bother me more...

Its like saying gays are bigoted because they might have felt extra for what happened in Orlando...

Or Pakistanis for caring more about Peshawar...

Noone reasonable here would tell you who to care for...or try and make someone feel guilty for caring about one cause over another...

Just seems to be some pathetic trend lately...the 'why does noone talk about this' obsession...

If you want more awareness for somewhere else then raise it...

It's only s28 aka Magneto :akhtar who voices his concern about the hypocritical outrage which is selective, but you do have a point and I care little for what happens beyond the UK although there is an attachment/respect/love which I have for Pak and a mini one for Jamaica as well given me origins, am no uncle tom like some :mv
 
[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] and [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] do have a point in their own ways but in terms of priority, we just have to honestly look in the mirror to get an answer or forget the mirror, follow your heart am sure certain things will make your heart strings vibrate more then others, its just human nature; maybe there is a bit of hypocrisy and ignorance at times and I admit to that but what can I say?

 
Pure Evil please deploy your reading skills for once. Nobody says it shouldn"t be covered it all. I'm saying is the coverage must be PROPORTIONATE. BBC News and Sky are still stuck on this story. Why is unconfirmed news being reported as breaking news ? Why jump to conclusions when investigations are ongoing ?

The massive publicity creates the illusion that these terrorists are having a bigger impact on society than they actually do. This emboldens them and inspires further attacks in a similar way as US mass shooters because they crave the limelight.

I'm old enough to remember the IRA attacks in the 1990s, a time when 24 hr news became popularised, and they didn't receive this wall to wall coverage despite the IRA being responsible for far more UK civilian deaths. This isn't 9/11, 7/7 or Paris. We have to continue our lives unless you want us to cower in fear for the next six months. Violence occurs in countries all the time but stick an ideology on it and suddenly its 24/7 headline news.


What discussion do we need to have about "these people existing in our society" ? You cannot stop every sick, violent lone wolf wanting to act out their vile fantasies. Shall we stop all cars being driven in the city of London ? Shall we institute a Muslim driving ban ? We must eradicate Islamic fundamentalism, but non-stop fearmongering won't defeat it.

Why the need for a comparison with IRA? Isn't this exactly the mentality displayed in the other thread where the poster is comparing how an Israeli life is valued more. Why make even the media coverage of the attack, an issue of contention?

But your rush to raise such questions after this tragedy is intriguing as I didn't see you racing to question "these people in society" when a far-right thug murdered an MP in broad daylight last year ? Or when James Harris Jackson stabbed a black man to death in Manhattan this month in the name of white supremacy ? Are these self-righteous fits of fury only for those who aren't your ideological brethren ?

I did not really see you complain about the media coverage. Nor did the resident conspiracy theorists create threads comparing it with Israel. There was unilateral agreement that these were dastardly attacks by sick individuals.

As a brown skinned guy in the west, I am genuinely worried when people here seem more outraged over the media coverage or how Israel gets away, instead of being outraged over another cowardly attack.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39372154

seems like his birth name was Adrian Elms and he converted and changed it to Khalid Masood which is the most Desi sounding name going. Normally these Salafi converts choose names like Abu Yusuf al Britani or Abu Muhammad al Englandi or somethinh comical like that. From the pictures yesterday i couldnt tell if he was Desi or Black but seems like he was from Afro-Caribbean background who converted to Islam.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">52-year old "Khalid Masood" was born Adrian Elms. Awaiting information about when he converted. Criminal record goes back to when he was 18. <a href="https://t.co/ywTKabCTIq">https://t.co/ywTKabCTIq</a></p>— İyad el-Baghdadi (@iyad_elbaghdadi) <a href="https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/845044342305652736">23 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
A couple of interesting points with wider long term significance to prevent similar attacks/problems in society

1. He was brought up without a father -
2. He converted in jail - why is penal system failing ?
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39372154

seems like his birth name was Adrian Elms and he converted and changed it to Khalid Masood which is the most Desi sounding name going. Normally these Salafi converts choose names like Abu Yusuf al Britani or Abu Muhammad al Englandi or somethinh comical like that. From the pictures yesterday i couldnt tell if he was Desi or Black but seems like he was from Afro-Caribbean background who converted to Islam.

I chuckled on the Al-Englandi ! haha
 
[MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] being from a single parent family doesnt mean you will be more prone to becoming an ISIS sympathiser.

Why Jails are hotbeds of militant Islamist extremist ideology is something that needs to be reviewed. No surprise they recruit thugs and gangsters to their fold as willinv foot soldiers and use their criminal tendencies for their own agenda.
 
save your breath until you have children and understand society better

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-dad-deprivation-could-be-eroding-modern-society/

How 'dad deprivation' could be eroding modern society


Martin Daubney
22 JUNE 2016 • 9:00AM

One of the world’s most respected campaigners on men’s issues believes “dad deprivation” is directly causing what he’s termed “the boy crisis” – and unless society urgently intervenes, we will be in danger of writing off a generation of men.

This Saturday, Warren Farrell – pioneering men’s activist, author of The Myth Of Male Power and a mentor who once coached John Lennon – will give a hugely-anticipated keynote speech at Male Psychology Conference in London.

Farrell believes modern society is being tangibly eroded by dad deprivation – through increased relationship breakdown, family courts that favour mothers, and fathers denied access to their children after a separation.

He points out that in in every one of the largest 70 developed nations, boys have fallen behind girls, and what they have in common, Farrell says, is divorce.

“Dad-deprived boys are less likely to display empathy, be less assertive, depressed, have nightmares, talk back and be disobedient,” says Farrell, 72.
 
Last edited:
It's only s28 aka Magneto :akhtar who voices his concern about the hypocritical outrage which is selective, but you do have a point and I care little for what happens beyond the UK although there is an attachment/respect/love which I have for Pak and a mini one for Jamaica as well given me origins, am no uncle tom like some :mv


Well KKWC too...with his how people rank based on ethnicity bs...

Our reactions as it happens usually have nothing to do with the victims themselves...its the act and what the act represents...the fact is it could have been me or someone close to me...and to add to that the attack was aimed at the likes of me...therefore its natural to feel an attachment...

Just as black people in the US will be feeling outraged about the post s28 has mentioned...and more so than the rest of us...its because they can relate to the issues more...

What I find pathetic about posters like s28 is they exploit issues simply to point score...as if hes remotely interested in the actual attack in the US...he would only have posted it simply to prove some pathetic point about how our outrage is selective...

It is selective...and its like that for everyone...and its not even wrong...if the Pakistanis on this forum feel more when something happens in this city then noone would criticise them for that...it seems only Westerners are held to certain standards...apparently us in the West have to care about everyone and everything equally lest we be bigots...

Its natural you will feel more of an affiliation to say Jamaica...and dont let anyone tell you any different...
 
Turned Sky News on and its proven my argument about the disproportionate and hysterical coverage this event has received. They're literally inside the hotel room in Brighton where Khalid Masood spent his last night.

Apparently his last meal was a kebab.

I don't know how we'd cope without such hard hitting journalism.
 
Turned Sky News on and its proven my argument about the disproportionate and hysterical coverage this event has received. They're literally inside the hotel room in Brighton where Khalid Masood spent his last night.

Apparently his last meal was a kebab.

I don't know how we'd cope without such hard hitting journalism.

:)) It drives the ratings! even though it's a short cut in such a superficial era but it's what the people relish, what kebab was it btw? did he add chilly/mayo ? :ma
 
Last edited:
some good things coming out of this tragedy

1. Response being led by visible Muslims (Muslim mayor ; Mudasser Ahmed (of Concordia) fund for victims etc)
2. White media calling out White right wing hate preachers e.g. Katie Hopkins now being called Abu Hopkins
3. Metropolitan Police enraging the racists by talking about right wing White nationalist extremism i.e. it's not Islam/Muslims that are the problem. Good to see visible presence of bearded asian policemen with gun wearing turbans on streets also
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My bit on Abu Hopkins <a href="https://t.co/U7QRHwlyvF">https://t.co/U7QRHwlyvF</a></p>— Marina Hyde (@MarinaHyde) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/844974328445878272">23 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39373766

seems like he had a very unique life. Seemed to have converted in the early 2000s married a British Pakistani Muslim lady around 2004 where he started to go by the name Masood and then spent two stints in Saudi as a teacher where maybe he became more radicalised.
Does seem to have the common Jihadist background of being involved in various run ins with the law and spending time in Prison before getting radicalised.
 
Man arrested over Westminster attack

Man, 30, arrested in Birmingham by officers investigating Westminster attack. A 58-year-old man is still in custody.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39400554...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Man, 30, arrested in Birmingham by officers investigating Westminster attack. A 58-year-old man is still in custody <a href="https://t.co/ksWFfqmQ5i">https://t.co/ksWFfqmQ5i</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/846040914896310273">March 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
I think the Alt-Right are going mad

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well she's not happy about it, but what's important is that she surrendered. <a href="https://t.co/57rsEOgg2k">pic.twitter.com/57rsEOgg2k</a></p>— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) <a href="https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/845971870692360192">26 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">West Midlands Police officers are on stage at "not in out name" event & say they are here "to stand shoulder to shoulder" with Brummies here <a href="https://t.co/3FqyzgpxVF">pic.twitter.com/3FqyzgpxVF</a></p>— Aisha S Gani (@aishagani) <a href="https://twitter.com/aishagani/status/845645690562891777">25 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Guardian front page, Monday 27 March 2017: Rudd ‘unrealistic’ to demand police access to WhatsApp <a href="https://t.co/ZFD5aEIAtC">pic.twitter.com/ZFD5aEIAtC</a></p>— The Guardian (@guardian) <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian/status/846112549372383233">26 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
I think the Alt-Right are going mad

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Well she's not happy about it, but what's important is that she surrendered. <a href="https://t.co/57rsEOgg2k">pic.twitter.com/57rsEOgg2k</a></p>— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) <a href="https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/845971870692360192">26 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

She's caving in to the demands by the look of it, she's wearing a hijab.

Don't do it your Majesty, stand proud for England! :cigar
 
58d8d4922c00002100ff0919.jpeg
 


So again your graph actually shows that the problem here in Europe is Islamist terrorism...we have the one Breivik thing and then all the rest since 2000 have been Islamists...539 civilians since 2000....

And remember these groups are targeting civilians not attacking military targets...
 
So again your graph actually shows that the problem here in Europe is Islamist terrorism...we have the one Breivik thing and then all the rest since 2000 have been Islamists...539 civilians since 2000....

And remember these groups are targeting civilians not attacking military targets...

The root causes are foreign policy, saudi arabian politics, Islamaphobia, wahabism and extreme salafism. But obviously you're not a muslim anymore and don't like us :mv so will look at it from a different angle where the root of all evil originates from one hole alone:broad
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Read <a href="https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan">@mehdirhasan</a> on the role that Islam does - and does not - play in terror attacks <a href="https://t.co/QpU7oTZ1MW">https://t.co/QpU7oTZ1MW</a></p>— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) <a href="https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/847106376879034368">29 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Love for all, hatred for none: hundreds gather for Westminster attack vigil


jgQOTHR3.jpg


4Aj2drrH.jpg



Hundreds of people have gathered on Westminster Bridge and outside the Houses of Parliament for a silent vigil to commemorate the four people who were murdered in last week’s terror attack.

At 2.40pm on Wednesday, precisely a week after Khalid Masood drove into crowds on the bridge before stabbing a police officer at the nearby Palace of Westminster, the crowds fell silent, many bowing their heads.

Among them were dozens of young Muslims from the Ahmadiyya community, several holding banners that read: “Love for all, hatred for none.”

They stood alongside senior police officers, Muslim and Jewish faith leaders, schoolchildren, tourists, workers from nearby offices and passersby, who had begun gathering hours earlier to pay their respects.

Margaret Blackwell, from Kensworth in Bedfordshire, fought back tears as she said she “just had to come”.“We all feel the same. It’s complete shock,” she added.

Noelle Lynch, an Irishwoman living in the Isle of Dogs, east London, had brought her sons Rowan, 12, and Jack, eight, because having lived through the IRA campaigns in London in the 1980s, “I think it’s so important to show that we all stand together.”

Her children had been nervous about coming, she said, “but I said, ‘Don’t worry. We’re not going to give in.’ That’s what I noticed about London. It’s all about showing we are not scared. Just getting on with it, going about our day.”

Three people were killed and more than 35 injured when Masood’s Hyundai 4x4 ploughed into the pavement on the bridge at more than 70mph . Kurt
Cochran, an American tourist, Aysha Frade, a Spanish-British teacher, and Leslie Rhodes, from London, died in the attack.

Masood then stabbed and killed PC Keith Palmer having burst through the gates of the Houses of Parliament complex. He was shot dead by police officers moments later.

The police presence was highly visible on the bridge, with police vans and mounted officers securing the ends of the bridge, and others in uniform mingling with the crowd, along with a number of heavily armed officers carrying semi-automatic weapons.


Abdul Hye Khan, the secretary of Bangladeshi Muslims UK, said he had gathered with other members of the Muslim community and faith leaders “to show our solidarity with those killed here by this barbaric attack. We don’t support this kind of attack in the name of Islam or any other faith. [Masood] had no faith. He was not a human being.”

Police officers also held a minute’s silence outside New Scotland Yard. Craig Mackey, the acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said: “This afternoon is about remembering the victims of last week’s events. Our thoughts, our prayers, go out to everyone who was affected by the events last week.

“I would urge you, if you get time, to go on to the bridge, talk to Londoners, talk and get a feel for this great city and how it’s come together in responding to these events.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-hundreds-gather-for-westminster-attack-vigil
 

I didn't realise this was an expectation, perhaps all white folk should denounce the murder of Jo Cox and terrorism whilst holding a rally as well. Pandering to a couple of narrow minded bigots only further demonizes muslims who shouldn't really be made to feel responsible for each and every crime by a nut job, they are not accountable anymore then me lovely next door neighbour Torrie who is white and of the pagan faith.
 
Last edited:
I have plenty of threads on Saudi influence so I haven't denied the role of wahabism at all ...My most recent thread on Saudi was about how Britain is a client of Saudi not the other way around ...

The question I have for you is do you believe Western oppression of people is limited to Muslim countries?...

If you agree that the answer to that question is no ...then why is it that terrorism in the Western world is limited to Islamists?...

Also I'd love to hear what Spain's role has been in the Middle East?...

And another question is why the sole targeting of civilians? ...it's a specific tactic ...

Some organisations only target military (guerillas)...some use terrorism as an occasional tactic ...and then you have the islamists who specifically target civilians ...
 
I have plenty of threads on Saudi influence so I haven't denied the role of wahabism at all ...My most recent thread on Saudi was about how Britain is a client of Saudi not the other way around ...

The question I have for you is do you believe Western oppression of people is limited to Muslim countries?...

If you agree that the answer to that question is no ...then why is it that terrorism in the Western world is limited to Islamists?...

Also I'd love to hear what Spain's role has been in the Middle East?...

And another question is why the sole targeting of civilians? ...it's a specific tactic ...

Some organisations only target military (guerillas)...some use terrorism as an occasional tactic ...and then you have the islamists who specifically target civilians ...

According to the FBI from 1980 until 2005 the vast majority of attacks were not by Muslims. Since 911 there have been plenty of attacks by non-muslims too. Not sure where you get your information.

But if western foreign policy has lead to the deaths of around 4 million people in multiple Muslim countries over a decade, it's not rocket science.

Also security services have said there is no evidence this attack has any link to ISIS. It could just be an angry man just like the dozens of white angry men who kill at random.
 
According to the FBI from 1980 until 2005 the vast majority of attacks were not by Muslims. Since 911 there have been plenty of attacks by non-muslims too. Not sure where you get your information.

But if western foreign policy has lead to the deaths of around 4 million people in multiple Muslim countries over a decade, it's not rocket science.

Also security services have said there is no evidence this attack has any link to ISIS. It could just be an angry man just like the dozens of white angry men who kill at random.

Foreign policy has also added fuel to the fire that is wahabism and radicalisation of muslims, it's the root cause of the said Islamists in Europe; are people seriously this gullible? this is just simple stuff don't know why people refuse to comprehend it lol:kohli:uak:broad:rahat1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The current ISIS attacks in Europe are to deter Western military support for its Arab allies against them.

ISIS initially had no intentions of attacking the West until it had secured its own state and then once it had managed to topple the surrounding Arab regimes they would move for the West like an inverted Al-Qaeda.

Also the fact ISIS is on the backfoot and is getting a hiding everywhere and its soldiers and supporters are losing morale they will encourage more attacks to maintain some sort of aura or psychological fear.
 
Some interesting points and you're correct that no one should feel they have to apologise for the actions of one crazed murderer however I don't see how such actions help to further demonise Muslims, tbh I think it has the opposite effect.

Muslims have a terrible pr problem in the UK - thanks in part to how the media portrays the community so it's nice to see things like this in the media for a change.

I didn't realise this was an expectation, perhaps all white folk should denounce the murder of Jo Cox and terrorism whilst holding a rally as well. Pandering to a couple of narrow minded bigots only further demonizes muslims who shouldn't really be made to feel responsible for each and every crime by a nut job, they are not accountable anymore then me lovely next door neighbour Torrie who is white and of the pagan faith.
 
Some interesting points and you're correct that no one should feel they have to apologise for the actions of one crazed murderer however I don't see how such actions help to further demonise Muslims, tbh I think it has the opposite effect.

Muslims have a terrible pr problem in the UK - thanks in part to how the media portrays the community so it's nice to see things like this in the media for a change.

You can look at it from that angle as well and on the surface you're right, but ask yourself should they have to come out like that in the first place? how does it solve the p.r problem when these people are basically coming out to tell other Brits "we are not mutants guys, we're just like you; it's not our fault" in doing so these protests would also suggest that they are guilty on some level which is not true at all, I aint never joining such a protest never; I really don't feel like I need to and nor should other British Muslims. Now am all for protesting against the media who demonize the moslems and joining our sikh brothers in protest here in the UK to advocate our disgust for that Modi clown :mv
 
Foreign policy has also added fuel to the fire that is wahabism and radicalisation of muslims, it's the root cause of the said Islamists in Europe; are people seriously this gullible? this is just simple stuff don't know why people refuse to comprehend it lol:kohli:uak:broad:rahat1

In the last week hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by western air strikes. The foreign policy is very dangerous for the whole world. There is no difference between killing an innocent person by a car, suicide belt or from a bomb dropped from the sky. The reasons don't make a difference either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's be honest almost all terror attacks can be traced back to one subsect within Islam, wahabies, salafies, ahle hadith or whatever they call themselves.
 
According to the FBI from 1980 until 2005 the vast majority of attacks were not by Muslims. Since 911 there have been plenty of attacks by non-muslims too. Not sure where you get your information.

But if western foreign policy has lead to the deaths of around 4 million people in multiple Muslim countries over a decade, it's not rocket science.

Also security services have said there is no evidence this attack has any link to ISIS. It could just be an angry man just like the dozens of white angry men who kill at random.

You're off form lately dude...poor choice to pick that study...it really disproves your own point...i'd of advised looking at it...

Firstly if you look at the study within the definition of terrorism you find vandalism and damage to property...how many actual deaths are caused by terrorists? which is what id argue is more of a concern than some leftist vandalising a store...

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property

And here is where the stats pose a problem...

3,178 deaths have been caused by terrorism between 1980 and 2005...

And herein lies the problem...the majority of terrorist incidents don't actually result in death at all...and this is based on a source you are presenting...

Two years...1995 and 2001 have actually had substantial numbers of deaths...the next highest is 1982 with 7...
1995 is 168
2001 is 2977

McVeigh was the big one in 1995 and of course 9/11 with 2,972...

So to put things in perspective 94% of the deaths caused by terrorism in the US were through 9/11 alone...

And to put that further in perspective that's 94% of deaths when Muslims comprise just 1% of the population...

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Give it a read...tbf though I would never use this source simply due to the fact that Muslims do only comprise 1% of the population and that that 94% is all from one attack...it's not much to go on...but since you decided to use it falsely as a source it's worth showing you how your source actually disproves your point...

Feel free to produce a study for France or the UK...areas with higher Muslim populations
 
^ You can't even provide a definition of what terrorism is. I'm going with what the Americans have stated, unless you want to discount the FBI now.

There are plenty of other reports too but first lets see your definition.
 
You're off form lately dude...poor choice to pick that study...it really disproves your own point...i'd of advised looking at it...

Firstly if you look at the study within the definition of terrorism you find vandalism and damage to property...how many actual deaths are caused by terrorists? which is what id argue is more of a concern than some leftist vandalising a store...



And here is where the stats pose a problem...

3,178 deaths have been caused by terrorism between 1980 and 2005...

And herein lies the problem...the majority of terrorist incidents don't actually result in death at all...and this is based on a source you are presenting...

Two years...1995 and 2001 have actually had substantial numbers of deaths...the next highest is 1982 with 7...
1995 is 168
2001 is 2977

McVeigh was the big one in 1995 and of course 9/11 with 2,972...

So to put things in perspective 94% of the deaths caused by terrorism in the US were through 9/11 alone...

And to put that further in perspective that's 94% of deaths when Muslims comprise just 1% of the population...

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Give it a read...tbf though I would never use this source simply due to the fact that Muslims do only comprise 1% of the population and that that 94% is all from one attack...it's not much to go on...but since you decided to use it falsely as a source it's worth showing you how your source actually disproves your point...

Feel free to produce a study for France or the UK...areas with higher Muslim populations

So what's your conclusion? Islam is the root of all evil ? Do you feel better now about leaving the religion now :yk

Honestly you could be on to something, I feel threatened by the mere presence of muslims; including me G.P and Papah Jabar who works behind the till at Ahmedabad Kebab House here in the UK, always get dodgy vibes he might poison me :mv he has a big beard as well:broad don't even get me started on that creepy guy who plays for the England cricket team, he's not very popular in Brum and rumour has it his team mates don't really get along with him all too well:uak:root
 
Last edited:
So what's your conclusion? Islam is the root of all evil ? Do you feel better now about leaving the religion now :yk

Honestly you could be on to something, I feel threatened by the mere presence of muslims; including me G.P and Papah Jabar who works behind the till at Ahmedabad Kebab House here in the UK, always get dodgy vibes he might poison me :mv he has a big beard as well:broad don't even get me started on that creepy guy who plays for the England cricket team, he's not very popular in Brum and rumour has it his team mates don't really get along with him all too well:uak:root


Not at all...I'm point at the poor use of the source...9/11 is an anomaly...but since KKWC wanted to use statistics it's worth showing him how his source actually works against him...

As someone who studied social research methods you would be surprised by just how easy it is to make different interpretations based on the same data...

So some will list the number of offences as KKWC did and then determine how many are committed by Muslims...this as mentioned is poor considering i doubt the average person when thinking of terrorism is thinking of vandalism which is what a lot of these terror offences actually are in terms of numbers...but hey 94% of terror offences are committed by non-Muslims...this btw is still not helpful considering Muslims only comprise 1% of the population...so even from this perspective its a weak argument as Muslims are still disproportionately represented...

Then you have those who look at number of deaths caused...and when one looks at this 94% of deaths caused by terrorism are from Islamist attacks...

Tbf I wouldn't use this source in any actual argument...only reason i'm discussing it is because KKWC misused it...
Why wouldn't I use it...9/11 is a massive outlier...its nearly 3,000 deaths...the majority of deaths have come from one attack alone which for me doesn't make it representative...but those who do feel like using it can easily deduce that 94% of deaths have been caused by 1% of the population...which is like I said a misuse much like what KKWC did except at the other end...

That said I'm inclined to agree with the idea that more deaths are caused by Muslims through terror than any other group...especially in Europe...this isn't to say that the majority of Muslims aren't law abiding citizens but the minority extremists are a very dangerous fringe...
 
^ You can't even provide a definition of what terrorism is. I'm going with what the Americans have stated, unless you want to discount the FBI now.

There are plenty of other reports too but first lets see your definition.

Lol can you at least have a little sincerity and just agree you misused a statistic...did you even look at the source you posted?...

Like I said the Americans have included vandalism in their definition...if you think that's what scares people then you're living in cloud cuckoo land...it's the attempts at killing civilians which is what concerns people...

Are you honestly going to equate damaging property with murder?...
 
Lol can you at least have a little sincerity and just agree you misused a statistic...did you even look at the source you posted?...

Like I said the Americans have included vandalism in their definition...if you think that's what scares people then you're living in cloud cuckoo land...it's the attempts at killing civilians which is what concerns people...

Are you honestly going to equate damaging property with murder?...

I've read the source a long time ago, it's not new. I never suggested I agree with the definition but since it was from the FBI , which is an American official crime fighting entity, I used it.

I'm still waiting for your definition as you too disagree with the FBI.
 
I've read the source a long time ago, it's not new. I never suggested I agree with the definition but since it was from the FBI , which is an American official crime fighting entity, I used it.

I'm still waiting for your definition as you too disagree with the FBI.

My own personal definition has nothing to do with property...it's the unlawful use of force and targeting of civilians for political aims...

If you want to include property that's your prerogative but it's misrepresentation when discussing threats...in short statistics don't assist your cause in any way...to give an example in the British stats you have a similar issue...an outlier...ie 2005...since 2001...56 deaths...53 came from 2005...100% involved Muslims...

Sharp growth last year in British nationals being arrested...75%...the overall is 55%...
Top 5 nationalities based on those arrested for terror offences are:
1 - Algeria
2 - Pakistan
3 - Iraq
4 - Afghanistan
5 - Iran

And then:
2,297 arrests, of whom 1,066 are Muslim (46%)
290 Muslims charged which is 57%

A heavily disproportionate number of Muslims frankly...

In short you are still more likely to die crossing the road...but if a terrorist is gonna kill you the likelihood is he will be Muslim...

Its just disingenuous to say risks of terrorism involve non-Muslims...it would be much better to argue that risks of terrorism itself is low...
 
My own personal definition has nothing to do with property...it's the unlawful use of force and targeting of civilians for political aims...

If you want to include property that's your prerogative but it's misrepresentation when discussing threats...in short statistics don't assist your cause in any way...to give an example in the British stats you have a similar issue...an outlier...ie 2005...since 2001...56 deaths...53 came from 2005...100% involved Muslims...

Sharp growth last year in British nationals being arrested...75%...the overall is 55%...
Top 5 nationalities based on those arrested for terror offences are:
1 - Algeria
2 - Pakistan
3 - Iraq
4 - Afghanistan
5 - Iran

And then:
2,297 arrests, of whom 1,066 are Muslim (46%)
290 Muslims charged which is 57%

A heavily disproportionate number of Muslims frankly...

In short you are still more likely to die crossing the road...but if a terrorist is gonna kill you the likelihood is he will be Muslim...

Its just disingenuous to say risks of terrorism involve non-Muslims...it would be much better to argue that risks of terrorism itself is low...

Arrests by a country who by YOUR own definition are bigger perpetrators of terrorism than any group. Let's all bow down to the statistics and point of view of the bigger terrorist and concentrate on the smaller one. Would it not be sensible and logical to conclude if state terrorism was non-existent almost all of the attacks by groups would be minimal?

but if a terrorist is gonna kill you the likelihood is he will be Muslim... -

Why not Jewish if you are living in occupied land? Or why not American if you live in the tribal areas of Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc? Or in your world dropping bombs knowing civilians will be blown to pieces is a just act?
 
Arrests by a country who by YOUR own definition are bigger perpetrators of terrorism than any group. Let's all bow down to the statistics and point of view of the bigger terrorist and concentrate on the smaller one. Would it not be sensible and logical to conclude if state terrorism was non-existent almost all of the attacks by groups would be minimal?



Why not Jewish if you are living in occupied land? Or why not American if you live in the tribal areas of Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc? Or in your world dropping bombs knowing civilians will be blown to pieces is a just act?

Lol now you're deflecting and going off on tangents...

At what point did you think I was making a worldwide link...the thread is about Westminster...and the statistics are about the UK...bringing up Pakistan, Syria etc isn't part of this thread...if you wanna discuss those open another thread...

Lets look at what you did...you selectively cherry picked a source that said 94% of terrorists weren't Muslim...

I showed you in response that 94% of deaths caused by terrorism in the US are caused by Muslims...

In the UK this is 100%...

It's just factually incorrect to say Muslims are less of a threat to Brits in the UK than other groups...this isn't saying Muslims on the whole are a threat...but suggesting other groups in the UK warrant the same amount of concern is baseless...

Your discussion on foreign policy is more relevant...but is more of a smokescreen than anything else...what Islamists offer Muslims is the potential for dignity and the potential for martyrdom...the issue for the likes of IS isn't that Britain invaded Iraq it's that their Caliphate isn't being allowed to settle and expand...

Furthermore you're presuming that it's as simple as big bad Western powers VS Islam...its actually a very difficult balancing act...eg Western powers choose to do deals with the Gulf which therefore funds terrorism/extremism...and if that isn't done then you face the potential of economic disaster with high oil prices...

To put things in perspective...Britain imported 900m in Saudi oil last year...they import more oil from Saudi than anywhere else...and sold 872m in arms...the US is their second biggest importer with 120m...lol even spent 100k on sending ppl to the Crown Princes funeral...it's a terrible partner to have but the risks to taking a moral stance could be disastrous...
 
Lol now you're deflecting and going off on tangents...

At what point did you think I was making a worldwide link...the thread is about Westminster...and the statistics are about the UK...bringing up Pakistan, Syria etc isn't part of this thread...if you wanna discuss those open another thread...

Lets look at what you did...you selectively cherry picked a source that said 94% of terrorists weren't Muslim...

I showed you in response that 94% of deaths caused by terrorism in the US are caused by Muslims...

In the UK this is 100%...

It's just factually incorrect to say Muslims are less of a threat to Brits in the UK than other groups...this isn't saying Muslims on the whole are a threat...but suggesting other groups in the UK warrant the same amount of concern is baseless...

Your discussion on foreign policy is more relevant...but is more of a smokescreen than anything else...what Islamists offer Muslims is the potential for dignity and the potential for martyrdom...the issue for the likes of IS isn't that Britain invaded Iraq it's that their Caliphate isn't being allowed to settle and expand...

Furthermore you're presuming that it's as simple as big bad Western powers VS Islam...its actually a very difficult balancing act...eg Western powers choose to do deals with the Gulf which therefore funds terrorism/extremism...and if that isn't done then you face the potential of economic disaster with high oil prices...

To put things in perspective...Britain imported 900m in Saudi oil last year...they import more oil from Saudi than anywhere else...and sold 872m in arms...the US is their second biggest importer with 120m...lol even spent 100k on sending ppl to the Crown Princes funeral...it's a terrible partner to have but the risks to taking a moral stance could be disastrous...

I'm not deflecting anything, this is your poor understanding. I provided a reference from the FBI, an American source. We both don't agree on their definition but this is a public forum and if the FBI are defnining terrorism, many would take their view as valid. This is not very difficult to understand and there are many more statistics I can provide which suggest Muslims are not the main source of terrorism in the west. Attacks by Muslims are covered much more in the media. I suggest you read the below article.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138

There is no need to open another thread.. The point is related to what constitutes terrorism and if this attack in Westminster was actually a terrorist attack. The findings at present suggest the attacker had no links to any known terrorist organisation. This is purely speculation in the media, the governments and people like yourself as this furthers their agenda.

I've not suggested west v Muslims, this is yet again something else you have just conjured from nowhere. What I have said is terrorism as by your definition is carried out by sovereign states on a much larger scale. Do you disagree?
 
I'm not deflecting anything, this is your poor understanding. I provided a reference from the FBI, an American source. We both don't agree on their definition but this is a public forum and if the FBI are defnining terrorism, many would take their view as valid. This is not very difficult to understand and there are many more statistics I can provide which suggest Muslims are not the main source of terrorism in the west. Attacks by Muslims are covered much more in the media. I suggest you read the below article.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138

There is no need to open another thread.. The point is related to what constitutes terrorism and if this attack in Westminster was actually a terrorist attack. The findings at present suggest the attacker had no links to any known terrorist organisation. This is purely speculation in the media, the governments and people like yourself as this furthers their agenda.

I've not suggested west v Muslims, this is yet again something else you have just conjured from nowhere. What I have said is terrorism as by your definition is carried out by sovereign states on a much larger scale. Do you disagree?

Of course you're deflecting...this isn't a discussion on Global Terror...this is a discussion about the UK...

Simple question...if there is a terror attack in Britain who is the most likely to commit it?...

Again the figures on terrorism are official statistics...not picked out from the media...

There is an irony to this because you clearly based your original argument on the 'its 94%' article that has been bandied around...

The aim of that article wasn't to educate but to mislead...in the same manner that you did...

People hear terror they think death...they dont think of some anarchist damaging a building...

Am I to presume from your defence of your source that you do equate damaging buildings with killing people?...

If not then move on...

As for your media piece...there is a distinct difference between hate crimes and terrorism... IS claims to be at war with Britain...McVeigh attacked the state etc...and its odd that you would criticise the media in this case because they so easily could have created the links you are creating but they haven't...

Here is what we can say about the Westminster attacker...he was Muslim, he was at some point under surveillance, and more importantly he used the exact methodology used by other Islamist attackers...interestingly at a time when IS have been encouraging this exact methodology...

IS as has been mentioned time and time again don't do networks anymore...they do incitement...its an effective method...it also allows yourself to simply blame the individual whenever this happens...and deny an Islamist link...
 
Of course you're deflecting...this isn't a discussion on Global Terror...this is a discussion about the UK...

Simple question...if there is a terror attack in Britain who is the most likely to commit it?...

Again the figures on terrorism are official statistics...not picked out from the media...

There is an irony to this because you clearly based your original argument on the 'its 94%' article that has been bandied around...

The aim of that article wasn't to educate but to mislead...in the same manner that you did...

People hear terror they think death...they dont think of some anarchist damaging a building...

Am I to presume from your defence of your source that you do equate damaging buildings with killing people?...

If not then move on...

As for your media piece...there is a distinct difference between hate crimes and terrorism... IS claims to be at war with Britain...McVeigh attacked the state etc...and its odd that you would criticise the media in this case because they so easily could have created the links you are creating but they haven't...

Here is what we can say about the Westminster attacker...he was Muslim, he was at some point under surveillance, and more importantly he used the exact methodology used by other Islamist attackers...interestingly at a time when IS have been encouraging this exact methodology...

IS as has been mentioned time and time again don't do networks anymore...they do incitement...its an effective method...it also allows yourself to simply blame the individual whenever this happens...and deny an Islamist link...

Did you even bother to read the link I posted? I've already explained why I posted the 94% article. There is nothing to mislead anyone who has half a brain and can see whose stats they are, unless you think you are the only educated person on here.

You can keep on denying and running away from the link between global terrorism and this incident. It's obvious why you would as it's clear the main terrorism is from state terrorism. If this is linked to the middle east it must be discussed why. Your friends Israel are in fact one of the major factors for the unrest in the middle east. They are the no.1 terrorist state, as they have been killing people for political means for half a century. Their American and other allies have launched terrorist wars across the middle east , resulting in the deaths of millions of people for the protection of the Zionist illegitimate state. But you can carry on focusing on ISIS who have no real operational skills anywhere in the world. Incitement is too broad to accurately understand the blame , ie. KKK , Right wing groups, incite people to attack but does this mean every person who is attacked by anyone in line with their thinking is the responsibly of these groups, of course not. They claim responsibility for any attack from an unknown website and you feel this is the main issue in this incident when in reality it's the foreign policy of terrorist states. You clearly have no interest in understanding the big and important picture but just to peddle the propaganda of western governments who are there to further their own agendas. I have nothing further to state as you are simply boring me and ignoring my points. Shalom.
 
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? I've already explained why I posted the 94% article. There is nothing to mislead anyone who has half a brain and can see whose stats they are, unless you think you are the only educated person on here.

You can keep on denying and running away from the link between global terrorism and this incident. It's obvious why you would as it's clear the main terrorism is from state terrorism. If this is linked to the middle east it must be discussed why. Your friends Israel are in fact one of the major factors for the unrest in the middle east. They are the no.1 terrorist state, as they have been killing people for political means for half a century. Their American and other allies have launched terrorist wars across the middle east , resulting in the deaths of millions of people for the protection of the Zionist illegitimate state. But you can carry on focusing on ISIS who have no real operational skills anywhere in the world. Incitement is too broad to accurately understand the blame , ie. KKK , Right wing groups, incite people to attack but does this mean every person who is attacked by anyone in line with their thinking is the responsibly of these groups, of course not. They claim responsibility for any attack from an unknown website and you feel this is the main issue in this incident when in reality it's the foreign policy of terrorist states. You clearly have no interest in understanding the big and important picture but just to peddle the propaganda of western governments who are there to further their own agendas. I have nothing further to state as you are simply boring me and ignoring my points. Shalom.

Your hypocrisy is amusing...

So you criticise me for having visited a terrorist state...

You also called Britain a terrorist state...

Where is it that you live?...
 
Your hypocrisy is amusing...

So you criticise me for having visited a terrorist state...

You also called Britain a terrorist state...

Where is it that you live?...

Brum is a no go zone and a terrorist mini state :mv
 
Not at all...I'm point at the poor use of the source...9/11 is an anomaly...but since KKWC wanted to use statistics it's worth showing him how his source actually works against him...

As someone who studied social research methods you would be surprised by just how easy it is to make different interpretations based on the same data...

So some will list the number of offences as KKWC did and then determine how many are committed by Muslims...this as mentioned is poor considering i doubt the average person when thinking of terrorism is thinking of vandalism which is what a lot of these terror offences actually are in terms of numbers...but hey 94% of terror offences are committed by non-Muslims...this btw is still not helpful considering Muslims only comprise 1% of the population...so even from this perspective its a weak argument as Muslims are still disproportionately represented...

Then you have those who look at number of deaths caused...and when one looks at this 94% of deaths caused by terrorism are from Islamist attacks...

Tbf I wouldn't use this source in any actual argument...only reason i'm discussing it is because KKWC misused it...
Why wouldn't I use it...9/11 is a massive outlier...its nearly 3,000 deaths...the majority of deaths have come from one attack alone which for me doesn't make it representative...but those who do feel like using it can easily deduce that 94% of deaths have been caused by 1% of the population...which is like I said a misuse much like what KKWC did except at the other end...

That said I'm inclined to agree with the idea that more deaths are caused by Muslims through terror than any other group...especially in Europe...this isn't to say that the majority of Muslims aren't law abiding citizens but the minority extremists are a very dangerous fringe...

I agree with that final paragraph but those minorities are good business for the economy which is why our trade and foreign policies are unlikely to change; these are some of the big factors which inspire such attacks in addition to wahabism.
 
The current ISIS attacks in Europe are to deter Western military support for its Arab allies against them.

ISIS initially had no intentions of attacking the West until it had secured its own state and then once it had managed to topple the surrounding Arab regimes they would move for the West like an inverted Al-Qaeda.

Also the fact ISIS is on the backfoot and is getting a hiding everywhere and its soldiers and supporters are losing morale they will encourage more attacks to maintain some sort of aura or psychological fear.

I find it difficult to believe any group with serious ambition could be so short sighted given the history of western intervention in the middle east. In truth, ISIS were an open invitation for the rest of the world to bomb the crap out of Syria and Iraq. If they were a serious organisation, I can only assume that was their intent all along.
 
Brum is a no go zone and a terrorist mini state :mv

Well its part of Britain no?...which KKWC calls a terrorist state ...

One has to ask based on the principles he claims to espouse ...why he stays here and contributes to this terrorist state ...

Pot kettle black comes to mind ;) ...
 
I agree with that final paragraph but those minorities are good business for the economy which is why our trade and foreign policies are unlikely to change; these are some of the big factors which inspire such attacks in addition to wahabism.

Foreign policy is of course a factor ...but the issue is we live in an era of capitalism ...

Britain can stand up to Saudi and then risk bigger problems ...Saudis showed their power in '73 and this is why our politicians won't dare say a word against Saudi ...

Corbin can act idealistic when he isn't in power but when push comes to shove he would accommodate Saudi too ...they buy arms ...they sell cut price oil ...these industries and this partnership provides money and jobs ...

So do you benefit the economy and stay silent against a state that exports terrorism?...

Also if all powers just let IS be does this make the Western nations safe?...terrorism is part of the ideology ...and its important for recruitment ...terrorism is supposed to sideline Muslims and provide IS a vacuum to fill ...Foreign fighters are crucial to them ....

The worse the public opinion is against Muslims the better it is for the likes of IS ...
 
Foreign policy is of course a factor ...but the issue is we live in an era of capitalism ...

Britain can stand up to Saudi and then risk bigger problems ...Saudis showed their power in '73 and this is why our politicians won't dare say a word against Saudi ...

Corbin can act idealistic when he isn't in power but when push comes to shove he would accommodate Saudi too ...they buy arms ...they sell cut price oil ...these industries and this partnership provides money and jobs ...

So do you benefit the economy and stay silent against a state that exports terrorism?...

Also if all powers just let IS be does this make the Western nations safe?...terrorism is part of the ideology ...and its important for recruitment ...terrorism is supposed to sideline Muslims and provide IS a vacuum to fill ...Foreign fighters are crucial to them ....

The worse the public opinion is against Muslims the better it is for the likes of IS ...

It's a difficult position I understand that and it's a lot easier for us to make various suggestions but there is always a saving grace and middle ground which should be a viable option to hit two birds with one stone which is our economy and the fight against extremism.

Are you happy with things as it stands? what would you do differently?
 
It's a difficult position I understand that and it's a lot easier for us to make various suggestions but there is always a saving grace and middle ground which should be a viable option to hit two birds with one stone which is our economy and the fight against extremism.

Are you happy with things as it stands? what would you do differently?

No... i'd rather Britain didn't engage with the Saudi Kingdom...but politically and economically its necessary...

Politically do you want a nation that exports terror like they do as an enemy?...right now Britain and France suffer from their blowback...the likes of Syria suffer from their direct involvement and look at it...

Do you want to lose their money?...

Its a nice idea to take a stance against bad regimes but sometimes its better to have them onside than off...

Fact is within a capitalist system there is no solution other than be pragmatic...

Greece's leftists if you remember were all idealists...and said they would never accept German austerity and look what happened to them...

What's necessary and what's morally correct unfortunately don't usually match...
 
Your hypocrisy is amusing...

So you criticise me for having visited a terrorist state...

You also called Britain a terrorist state...

Where is it that you live?...

lol. I critisice you for supporting/defending the policies/ideology of Israel. It's not what were you live but what you believe in. Anyone making excuses for Israel in any way is no better than anyone making excuses for ISIS, arguably worse.
 
Man who posted image of Muslim woman 'ignoring Westminster terror victims' was a Russian troll

A Twitter account which tweeted a picture of a Muslim woman wrongly accused of ignoring the Westminster terror attack has been revealed as one of the thousands of fake accounts set up by a Russian “troll factory”.

The account, @Southlonestar, tweeted a picture of a woman in a hijab walking past a victim laying on the ground while on her phone.

It said: “Muslim woman pays no mind to the terror attack, casually walks by a dying man while checking phone #PrayForLondon #Westminster #BanIslam.”

The sentiment was picked up by far-right activists in the UK and the US and the woman was attacked for her “indifference” to the scene.

In March 52-year-old Muslim convert Khalid Masood, who had been radicalised by Isis propaganda, drove a van in pedestrians on Westminster Bridge before attempting to storm the Houses of Parliament.

He killed five people, including a police officer on duty who tried to stop him, before being shot dead by armed officers.

The woman was photographed on the bridge in the moments after the attack but the man who took the picture, Jamie Lorriman told The Independent the woman was clearly “traumatised” and “visibly distressed”.

He said she was just one of hundreds fleeing the bridge, trying to avoid looking at the “horror surrounding them.”

“Her behaviour was completely in line with everyone else on the bridge, but you're not assuming others are callously ignoring the scenario,” he said.

“So many other people were walking all over the place - everybody that was on the ground had someone with them, if everybody had stopped and tried to help you would never have been able to help anyone.”

He said he hated that the photo had been taken out of context and used to push an “agenda” and said “people who hate will use anything as the weapon of their opinion”.

The account is one of 2,700 Twitter users which have been handed over to the US House Intelligence Committee as a fake one created in Russia to influence UK and US politics.

The committee is currently investigating claims that the Kremlin systematically intervened in the election and allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with them.

The account, which had over 16,000 followers and read “Proud TEXAN and AMERICAN patriot” is known to have spread messages on the day of the US presidential election a few months earlier designed to support Donald Trump.

It was also one of a number of accounts which tweeted pro-Brexit messages on the day of the EU referendum in June last year.

The accounts are believed to have been written by staff at the Internet Research Centre in St Petersburg.

The trolls are believed to work around from 8am-8pm Moscow time (5am- 5pm UK time) to churn out hundreds of thousands of tweets designed to spread political disharmony in western countries such as the US and the UK and encourage the rise of populist politicians or causes.

Many tweets mocked the warnings of the Remain campaign, which said the country faced years of economic uncertainty and a potential recession if it voted to leave, with memes such as one which said: “If you Brexit your car won’t start in the morning”.

The scale and speed at which the tweets were produced suggested they were not spontaneous or genuine – one account, called [MENTION=488]peter[/MENTION]MagLob who was pretending to be German, tweeted 20 times an hour during polling day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ck-phone-russian-troll-identity-a8052961.html
 
Back
Top