Incident in London

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:49 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:After every one of these attacks, the leftists sink deeper and deeper into their comfort blanket of denial. Facebook and Twitter is totally awash with comments defining Islam as "a religion of peace, with only one entry or two bad apples who aren't even real Muslims anyway."

It's this denial that worries me, how many more terrorists have to kill, screaming god is great whilst willing giving their lives in the process for these leftists to face reality? I fear it will never happen.

Allah-hu-Akbar actually translates as "Allah is greater", it was the early battlecry of Muhammad and his companions as they raided the Quraysh Pagan trade caravans en route to and from Mecca.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:50 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You accuse others of denial yet you think internment and persecution is a solution even though it's been made crystal clear to you how such "solutions" would make things far worse.

Is making it worse actually what you want? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd like to know if you actually want a war between the west and all Muslims, because your persistence in wanting to give in to the likes of ISIS certainly suggests so.

Just calling it what it is would be a start, saying Islam is the problem like any of us with any sense know; instead of constantly deflecting blame, using false equivalencies like the ******* KKK, blaming our government and getting angry over islamophobia.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:58 am

Havnt read all the reports but I will be interested to see where these scumbags originate from and what their beliefs were. Think I could bet my house on it. The soft approach to immigration and pandering to the PC brigade is coming home to roost.

All bridges should have had bollards put up after the last attack. Why has this not been done.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:00 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Just calling it what it is would be a start, saying Islam is the problem like any of us with any sense know; instead of constantly deflecting blame, using false equivalencies like the ******* KKK, blaming our government and getting angry over islamophobia.

I'm getting pretty sick of having to explain to ******* idiots how acknowledging that things we've done as a country have made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks is not the same as blaming ourselves. Or for that matter how concentration camps would make things worse.

Is making things worse what you want? If it is then i'll stop arguing against your solution and acknowledge that it is actually a workable solution, just not to the problem I thought.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:02 am

Blackrod wrote:... pandering to the PC brigade is coming home to roost.

more blaming the left.

But don't you dare suggests that invading Iraq made us less safe, because that would be blaming ourselves and that's wrong.

The doublethink is amazing.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:04 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Do you really think they had been using it across the country for 10 years after the 9/11 attacks and this was the first time its use was reported by the likes of Fox? Or do you think that perhaps this was one of probably very few times (maybe even the first time) it was used since 9/11 and that the leadership of CAIR didn't know about it until the press reported on it?

CAIR is an Islamic advocacy group dedicated to apologetics and Dawah, so I don't know, do you?

Imploding Turtle wrote:There are far better explanations than to assume that the entire organisation of CAIR is actively impeding the investigation of terrorism.

Yes I'm sure there will be much 'better' explanations, and I'm sure we can all sleep easy in the knowledge that everything possible is being done in Muslim communities around the world to thwart the spread of Islam and its Shar'ia via violent jihad and other methods. Sleep easy in that knowledge.

Not all Muslims of course.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:04 am

Imploding Turtle wrote: more blaming the left.

But don't you dare suggests that invading Iraq made us less safe, because that would be blaming ourselves and that's wrong.

The doublethink is amazing.

It was the ******* left who invaded Iraq, whilst simultaneously importing Islam to our shores in its millions.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:05 am

paulatky wrote:Newcastle,80% of people agree with you.

And they would be wrong.

You cannot take away my right to knowledge and my right to decide for myself what I will do with that knowledge, or am I different because I'm an atheist?

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:06 am

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq the second time. Libya and Iraq were more stable with dictators in charge.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:07 am

Blackrod wrote:We shouldn't have invaded Iraq the second time. Libya and Iraq were more stable with dictators in charge.

Maybe think about that on Thursday if it's a concern for you?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:07 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:It was the ******* left who invaded Iraq, whilst simultaneously importing Islam to our shores in its millions.

Lol, that's cute. You think Blair and Bush were left-wing. And how many "millions" of Muslims do you think have been "imported" to our shores since we invaded Iraq?

You are so misinformed it's unreal.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:10 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol, that's cute. You think Blair and Bush were left-wing. And how many "millions" of Muslims do you think have been "imported" to our shores since we invaded Iraq?

You are so misinformed it's unreal.

We'll considering the Muslim population pretty much doubled between the 2001 and 2011 census you tell me?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:15 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol, that's cute. You think Blair and Bush were left-wing.

I can't speak for Bush, but About the only thing you can say “Blair was not left wing” was he did not actively reverse Thatcher’s laws on unions or privatisations. (and, arguably, Iraq).
He was left wing. It just doesn't suit your agenda

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:17 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:We'll considering the Muslim population pretty much doubled between the 2001 and 2011 census you tell me?

4.82% is not "pretty much double" of 3.07% (england and wales only). So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're another argument in favour of investing more money in our education system as it has clearly failed you.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:22 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:It was the ******* left who invaded Iraq, whilst simultaneously importing Islam to our shores in its millions.

And what about invading Libya?

No doubt that doesn't count as it was David Cameron who was in charge at the time.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:22 am

Blackrod wrote: All bridges should have had bollards put up after the last attack. Why has this not been done.

Do you work or live in London?
I spend a lot of time there - in fact I was on London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, and Vauxhall Bridge, last week, and drove home over Putney Bridge on Friday evening. (When working in London my wife walks daily through the Borough and into London bridge station.)
You know what bridges are for don't you? They are to enable people to travel from one side of the city to the other. Even closing one lane of one bridge causes chaos. There's a lot of traffic you know. Bringing the city of London to an absolute standstill is exactly the sort of thing that terrorists are aiming to do.
In any case, why stop a bridges? it's purely coincidental that people have been mowed down on bridges. You could do it on any street. In fact it would probably cause even more death and destruction.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:23 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:4.82% is not "pretty much double" of 3.07% (england and wales only). So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're another argument in favour of investing more money in our education system as it has clearly failed you.

There was around 1.2/1.3million Muslims in the UK when Blair Labour took power, by the time it ended there was 2.6, and that's just the ones who are on record and accounted for.

Labour mass imported Islam to our shores, stop trying to deny it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:24 am

Spijed wrote:And what about invading Libya?

No doubt that doesn't count as it was David Cameron who was in charge at the time.

Don't accept his false premise that it was the left that invaded Iraq. It's bullshit.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:25 am

To add, what about right wing governments helping Saudi Arabia? A country that is at the heart of these problems.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:26 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:There was around 1.2/1.3million Muslims in the UK when Blair Labour took power, by the time it ended there was 2.6, and that's just the ones who are on record and accounted for.

Labour mass imported Islam to our shores, stop trying to deny it.

The goalposts are moving. First it "simultaneous" to the invasion of Iraq, then it was 2001-2011, now it's from when Blair took power to when he left power.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:29 am

Any of you right wingers sobered up yet?

Anybody found an example through history where what you suggest works?

I don't mind a good rant, but just ranting when you know you are wrong needs a dictionary definition

Ringoism? Moffatisation?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:The goalposts are moving. First it "simultaneous" to the invasion of Iraq, then it was 2001-2011, now it's from when Blair took power to when he left power.

So I got my time frames a bit mixed up. They still doubled the Islamic population under their tenure and invaded Iraq whilst doing so.

This is labours mess. The tories failed to learn from it and I'm not in the business of defending them either because there's plenty of blame at their feet too.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:35 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Just calling it what it is would be a start, saying Islam is the problem like any of us with any sense know; instead of constantly deflecting blame, using false equivalencies like the ******* KKK, blaming our government and getting angry over islamophobia.

It would be a start if the end goal is a war between the west and all of Islam, or if you want to radicalise more Muslims.

Doesn't it bother you that you seem to want the same things as Daesh? Or, at least, the actions you want us to take would help them to achieve their goals?

This is why getting angry at Islamophobia is entirely consistent with being angry at Daesh.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:35 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:So I got my time frames a bit mixed up. They still doubled the Islamic population under their tenure and invaded Iraq whilst doing so.

This is labours mess. The tories failed to learn from it and I'm not in the business of defending them either because there's plenty of blame at their feet too.

Remind me which party was in power for the gulf war...? Should Saddam have been "sorted" the first time?

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:46 am

Let's light more candles and have a sing song. We call it defiance they call it targets.
The liberals say let's not introduce internment and mass deportation of associates/supporters who have been given asylum those born here citizen ship removed and pay Pakistan or some other Islamic wonderland such as Afghanistan to take them so they can live in happiness in a land they want to create here because that is what they want. Well NOT giving them what they want isn't working.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:48 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:So I got my time frames a bit mixed up. They still doubled the Islamic population under their tenure and invaded Iraq whilst doing so.

This is labours mess. The tories failed to learn from it and I'm not in the business of defending them either because there's plenty of blame at their feet too.

Yep you got your time frames mixed up. We'll go with that explanation for now.

Now it's time to embarrass your numbers. Between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim population increased by 1.159 millon from 1.546 million to 2.706 million.

When you say that Labour is responsible for this increase i'm not entirely sure you know what you're implying. For example. How many of this 1.159 million extra Muslims came here from somewhere else? I'll help you out. The answer is 599,427.

Tell me, Moffitt, are you suggesting that Labour should have sterilised all Muslims and banned conversion to Islam? I'm trying to work out why you blame Labour for the 560k increase in UK born Muslims in that decade and what you think they should have done to prevent it.

I'm pretty sure you knew you were talking **** but didn't expect to be called on it. How is it that you've not figured out by now that i enjoy embarrassing your stupid arguments? What on earth made you think i'd let you use numbers so obviously untrue without looking it up? Blair imported millions? Not even 600k in (one of) the time frame(s) you offered. Even fewer during the Iraq war.

Source

This is the bit where you, right_winger and ringo whine that I used the internet, and facts, to pick apart your argument.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:50 am

CM, look at a history book or just do some googling.

1920s (90 years ago) - the RAFs way of dealing with tribesmen in Iraq was to bomb them. Not just bomb them, use mustard gas on them. Thats the kind of thing that people remember

1941 - Iraq government overthrown by British troops, ditto the one in Iran. Thats the kind of thing that people remember

1950s - Iranian govt again overthrown in a British supported coup. Thats the kind of thing that people remember

1980s - loads of covert support for Iraq from the west in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats the kind of thing that people remember

Point is, its not as simple as labour are to blame for this. Yes, we should never have gone in, but its far more complex that that and trying to pretend it isn't to back up your points does you or your argument no favours*

*I might be wrong on some of the dates as I'm going off memory!

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:51 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Do you work or live in London?
I spend a lot of time there - in fact I was on London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, and Vauxhall Bridge, last week, and drove home over Putney Bridge on Friday evening. (When working in London my wife walks daily through the Borough and into London bridge station.)
You know what bridges are for don't you? They are to enable people to travel from one side of the city to the other. Even closing one lane of one bridge causes chaos. There's a lot of traffic you know. Bringing the city of London to an absolute standstill is exactly the sort of thing that terrorists are aiming to do.
In any case, why stop a bridges? it's purely coincidental that people have been mowed down on bridges. You could do it on any street. In fact it would probably cause even more death and destruction.

He meant to stop vehicles being able to get on the pavement. Not stop people walking on them.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:55 am

Dyched wrote:He meant to stop vehicles being able to get on the pavement. Not stop people walking on them.

If we put them on all bridges then how do emergency vehicles get from one side of a crowded bridge to the other if cars can't use the pavement to make gaps? It isn't a sensible reaction to just one terror attack. If it becomes a regular strategy, to attack bridges like this, then it might become worthwhile, but for now i think it would cause more problems, and cost more lives than it saves.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:56 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yep you got your time frames mixed up. We'll go with that explanation for now.

Now it's time to embarrass your numbers. Between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim population increased by 1.159 millon from 1.546 million to 2.706 million.

When you say that Labour is responsible for this increase i'm not entirely sure you know what you're implying. For example. How many of this 1.159 million extra Muslims came here from somewhere else? I'll help you out. The answer is 599,427.

Tell me, Moffitt, are you suggesting that Labour should have sterilised all Muslims and banned conversion to Islam? I'm trying to work out why you blame Labour for the 560k increase in UK born Muslims in that decade and what you think they should have done to prevent it.

I'm pretty sure you knew you were talking **** but didn't expect to be called on it. How is it that you've not figured out by now that i enjoy embarrassing your stupid arguments? What on earth made you think i'd let you use numbers so obviously untrue without looking it up? Blair imported millions? Not even 600k in (one of) the time frame(s) you offered. Even fewer during the Iraq war.

Source

This is the bit where you, right_winger and ringo whine that I used the internet, and facts, to pick apart your argument.

Jesus ******* christ... So you're telling me a population of around a million managed to birth their way to a 560k increase in just 10 years? Wtf is the 2021 census going to look like if that's true now the number is up to 2.6??

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:02 am

Dyched wrote:He meant to stop vehicles being able to get on the pavement. Not stop people walking on them.

Maybe he did, it's ambiguous .
But as I said. Why stop at bridges?
It wouldn't be easy and would cost a lot of money, and all it would mean is that they drove over the bridge and then ploughed into people in (e.g.) The West End.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:03 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Jesus ******* christ... So you're telling me a population of around a million managed to birth their way to a 560k increase in just 10 years? Wtf is the 2021 census going to look like if that's true now the number is up to 2.6??

What can I say? They love to ****.

And by the way. 1.6 million is not "around a million".

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:03 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Maybe he did, it's ambiguous .
But as I said. Why stop at bridges?
It wouldn't be easy and would cost a lot of money, and all it would mean is that they drove over the bridge and then ploughed into people in (e.g.) The West End.

Let's pedestrianise the whole of central London. It's not like it's not difficult to get around without a car anyway.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:06 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What can I say? They love to ****.

And by the way. 1.6 million is not "around a million".

Lol we're more screwed than I thought.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:13 am

Oh dear ' do you know what brides are for '
I clearly mean putting bollards up between the pavement and the road. Ie to help protect pedestrians. Well done for driving from one side to the other.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:13 am

Bridges

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:13 am

Rick_Muller wrote:Let's pedestrianise the whole of central London. It's not like it's not difficult to get around without a car anyway.

Don't forget we should close all the tubes as well. In fact let's just abandon all the big cities completely, so that the terrorist will have nowhere to go and nothing to attack.
Oh, wait a minute ..................

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:15 am

Blackrod, what about all other roads that aren't bridges?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:16 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Blackrod, what about all other roads that aren't bridges?

elevte them to turn them into bridges and then bollard them. Easy-peezy.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:18 am

They can't all be bollarded but bridges are targeted because there is no where else for pedestrians to go except the river.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:19 am

Blackrod wrote:Oh dear ' do you know what brides are for '
I clearly mean putting bollards up between the pavement and the road. Ie to help protect pedestrians. Well done for driving from one side to the other.

So just look at the pictures now on BBC news. The reporter is standing on the street immediately over the bridge. Not a bollard in sight. So as I said: why just the bridge? How far would you extend it?
What about Yorkshire St after a match at Turf Moor? How many innocents could be mowed down there if someone had the inclination? (it would be the same outside many grounds).
You can't put barriers everywhere, and even if you could the terrorists would have won.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:22 am

Nick clegg now on TV telling we need to carry on as normal

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:22 am

Blackrod wrote:They can't all be bollarded but bridges are targeted because there is no where else for pedestrians to go except the river.

At least they have the river as an option. if you're on the street there's nothing but a solid wall, window shutters or a glass window.
I'd rather take my chance with the river, (if there was anytime in that couple of seconds to take evasive action.)

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:23 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nick clegg now on TV telling we need to carry on as normal

Well, you can choose not to go shopping incase Asda's Halal meat comes to life and strangles you if you like, but the rest of us shouldn't.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:25 am

It’s probably getting to a similar level as Ulster in the 70s and 80s at the moment, not that I’ve done any research but it feels like it.

There you had some big grievances on both sides and a breeding ground for endless numbers of angry young men happy to murder folk for a cause. Now some delinquent pricks in Bradford or East London aren’t living under ‘occupation’ of course but if they watch enough YouTube videos and listen to enough extremists in their area then they might believe the muslim oppression narrative.

I’m not sure what you do about this. In the past people were radicalised around the world by things they saw in their streets or town, now they live in echo chambers on the internet or local ghettoes and being thousands of miles from the cause of their perceived grievance is irrelevant.

I remember about 10 or 15 years ago on two separate occasions getting taxis in East Lancs and the drivers, both in their 40s or 50s spending a good part of the journey telling me about muslim oppression around the world. I think Chechnya and Bosnia were the cause of their angst at the time. Seemed weird then that they were so upset about something that affected absolutely nobody they knew or even a country they’d ever see. But if older guys were happy talking to strangers about their Islamic cause back then, god knows what kids are hearing today via their encrypted communications with likeminded crackpots.

Not really a suggestion of a solution there. But up to now, I don’t think internment, deportation or pretending mosques and their patrons couldn’t do a hell of a lot more are answers either.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:25 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nick clegg now on TV telling we need to carry on as normal

As opposed to saying what?
What would Churchill have said?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:26 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, you can choose not to go shopping incase Asda's Halal meat comes to life and strangles you if you like, but the rest of us shouldn't.

That the best you can come up with?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:27 am

nil_desperandum wrote:As opposed to saying what?
What would Churchill have said?

I have no idea, I'm 27 not 97.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:30 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I have no idea, I'm 27 not 97.

Perhaps best not to boast about knowing nothing about arguably our greatest leader. (Especially if you're going to post on political threads, [I'm not counting this thread as political by the way])

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:31 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Perhaps best not to boast about knowing nothing about arguably our greatest leader. (Especially if you're going to post on political threads, [I'm not counting this thread as political by the way])

What, do you know what he would have said? If so, how?