Terrorists in Britain

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,103
Likes
129
#1
[FONT=PT_Sans-Web-Regular] Just saying . . It seems like all of those "peaceful" Muslims aren't all that willing to adapt to the British lifestyle. Maybe the tea sippers will get off their bums and start some swamp cleaning of their own! I suggest the mayor of London might get an exit visa to lead them to their Muslim promised land.

Does Mrs, May have what it takes to do so? Maybe the early elections will give her the signal.

May argues against areas which help foster extremist ideologies and the country’s “tolerance of extremism”:[/FONT]

Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide. We need to work with allied, democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorist planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.
Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home. While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.
[FONT=PT_Sans-Web-Regular]In order for the UK to persevere, May concludes, “We must come together, we must pull together, and united we will take on and defeat our enemies.”[/FONT]
 

Goodgrief

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
13,792
Likes
156
#3
As saying anything against some people might be interpreted as racist, biased, bigoted. All I will say is: "My deepest condolences to my U.K friends, who, like most of the Western world, were gladly opening their arms to a can of worms. Being nice doesn't pay off."
 

heyitsxandra

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2017
Messages
50
Likes
2
#4
This isn't really funny, considering the fact that innocent people gets to be the victims of this terrorist attacks.
 
Last edited:

Bamber

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
41,992
Likes
867
#5
'All of those "peaceful" Muslims'.

So you are going to condemn 99.5% of a group because of the 0.5% who claim to be part of that group despite the majority flatly denying that they have any claim to be Muslim at all?

These people are just using Islam as a convenient excuse for their abhorrent actions.

I can't even call this poor or woolly thinking: no thinking appears to have gone into the argument whatsoever.

I have known a good number of Muslims in my life, all honourable and moral people, who would be and are as horrified by these actions as anyone not of their faith.

As for what Theresa May has said: political soundbites. It would be nice if there was a way of policing the internet in the way she describes but it just isn't possible. The internet has no national boundaries and international laws complied with by all nations are as rare as rocking horse shit.
The problems with policing terrorism in the UK can to a large extent be put down to cuts in the police and security services. The Home Secretary in 2015 was warned that cuts would compromise security. That Home Secretary was Theresa May, who accused the Police Federation at the time of scaremongering when they told her this, and cuts went ahead.

Until we are told who the attackers were we don't know, but the odds are they are UK born and bred and have been "radicalised" (brainwashed). I do agree that steps should have been taken earlier to clamp down on any such extremism but closing down the places where it is openly taught just drives it underground, and nowadays that means into groups on social media, which takes me back to the difficulties policing cyberspace.

I wish there was a simple answer, but life ain't like that.
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,103
Likes
129
#6
Save those thoughts, Bamber. You may be forced to eat them!
I don't think I would accept an all-expense paid trip to London in the near future.
 

Vinnie

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
9,115
Likes
73
#7
The Manchester Bomber was reported to the authorities by the members of his Mosque who subsequently banned him.
The Muslim community is not offering comfort to these guys but actively outing them and roosting them out.
The best thing we could do for the murderers is to start to penalise the general muslim community and start to introduce detention without trial or other misguided policies.
They recon that the detention attempts prolonged the Irish conflict by over ten years.
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,103
Likes
129
#8
Ah, yes! Tolerance.
Remember back to the early 1930s, if you will.
1933 - Hitler develops a major rearmament campaign. Britain and France do nothing.
1934 - Mussolini conquers Ethiopia. Britain and France do nothing.
1935 - Hitler renounced League of Nations and begins conscription, building a new army. Britain and France do nothing.
1935 June - Britain sabotages the
Stressa Front, allowing Germany to rebuild their navy.
1936 -
Hitler re-militarizes the Rhineland. Britain and France do nothing.
1938 - Hitler annexes Austria. Britain and France do nothing.
1938 - "I believe that Herr Hitler is a man with whom we can do business." Chamberlain
1938 - The Munich Pact gives Hitler the Sudetenland, then all of
Czechoslavia. Chamberlain says "we will have peace in our time"
1939 - Hitler takes Lithuania and the
Freecity of Danzig. Britain and France do nothing.
Chamberlain felt that appeasing Adolf Hitler today would prevent aggression tomorrow.
The British liberals are adopting the same policy today.
Tolerance!
And will you come screaming to the US again, just before you go under, begging for us to pull your chestnuts out of the fire?

T

 

Vinnie

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
9,115
Likes
73
#9
You seem to have no understanding of world history...why am I not surprised.
 

kipper

Super Moderator
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
29,189
Likes
454
#11
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048382]Which of the previous statements are wrong?
Show my your knowledge of the 1930s

T
[/QUOTE]


If Pearl harbour had not been bombed the USA would never have bothered entering the war, and thanks for the help in the Falklands and funding the IRA, really helped.
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,103
Likes
129
#12
What cause did we have to enter the Maldives?
And if it hadn't been for the Easter Monday massacre, maybe the Irish ex-pats wouldn't have been so passionate about donating funds.
It sounds like you expect us to take care of you during every conflict, big or small.

And p.s. you didn't answer my question about the 1930s.

T
 

kipper

Super Moderator
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
29,189
Likes
454
#13
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048394]What cause did we have to enter the Maldives?
And if it hadn't been for the Easter Monday massacre, maybe the Irish ex-pats wouldn't have been so passionate about donating funds.
It sounds like you expect us to take care of you during every conflict, big or small.

And p.s. you didn't answer my question about the 1930s.

T
[/QUOTE]


Unlike you I wasn't alive in the 30's so can't really comment, but thanks for telling us how to avoid shootings and terrorism.....I see you're proficient at stopping it as the list below shows.




Omar Mateen 53 dead

Syed Rizwan Farook 14 dead
Tashfeen Malik

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer dead 9

Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez dead 5

Dylann Storm Roof dead 9
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,103
Likes
129
#14
If I'm not mistaken, these occurred during the Presidency of the closet-Muslim.
I wasn't around during the 1930s either, but I do have a Graduate degree in history.
Now tell me again what appeasement did for Britain leading up to the attack on Poland.
You are free to look it up on the Internet if it would patch the holes in your knowledge of history!

T
 

kipper

Super Moderator
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
29,189
Likes
454
#15
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048397]If I'm not mistaken, these occurred during the Presidency of the closet-Muslim.
I wasn't around during the 1930s either, but I do have a Graduate degree in history.
Now tell me again what appeasement did for Britain leading up to the attack on Poland.
You are free to look it up on the Internet if it would patch the holes in your knowledge of history!

T
[/QUOTE]


Tslagi, I really couldn't give a flying fuck to be honest...I just find it amazing that people who don't live here know more about what's happening than those that live here, you''ll be telling me Trump is better than Obama next then I'm afraid we're just one step away from hey nonny nonny...
 

kipper

Super Moderator
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
29,189
Likes
454
#16
[QUOTE="Bamber, post: 5048221]'All of those "peaceful" Muslims'.

So you are going to condemn 99.5% of a group because of the 0.5% who claim to be part of that group despite the majority flatly denying that they have any claim to be Muslim at all?

These people are just using Islam as a convenient excuse for their abhorrent actions.

I can't even call this poor or woolly thinking: no thinking appears to have gone into the argument whatsoever.

I have known a good number of Muslims in my life, all honourable and moral people, who would be and are as horrified by these actions as anyone not of their faith.

As for what Theresa May has said: political soundbites. It would be nice if there was a way of policing the internet in the way she describes but it just isn't possible. The internet has no national boundaries and international laws complied with by all nations are as rare as rocking horse shit.
The problems with policing terrorism in the UK can to a large extent be put down to cuts in the police and security services. The Home Secretary in 2015 was warned that cuts would compromise security. That Home Secretary was Theresa May, who accused the Police Federation at the time of scaremongering when they told her this, and cuts went ahead.

Until we are told who the attackers were we don't know, but the odds are they are UK born and bred and have been "radicalised" (brainwashed). I do agree that steps should have been taken earlier to clamp down on any such extremism but closing down the places where it is openly taught just drives it underground, and nowadays that means into groups on social media, which takes me back to the difficulties policing cyberspace.

I wish there was a simple answer, but life ain't like that.
[/QUOTE]


Makes no difference how many Police we have when you have Police Commissioners like Hyphen-Howe putting 25% of the force investigating 35 year old celebrity noncing, and 25% investigating Journalists doing their job costing millions with not one conviction.
 

Goodgrief

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
13,792
Likes
156
#17
On the front page of all Canadian newspapers today. One of the victims in London was a Canadian. One. This woman was a dedicated social worker.
Is Canada going to tighten up security? I doubt it. Why? Well you see, like some people, our Government seems to think that there are no evil cells in this world.

Oh, before I go, I have to tell something about the U.S of A involvement BEFORE they officially joined the Allied Forces during WWII...

Long before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S Air Force literally pushed war planes through the Canadian border line in order to help the Royal Canadian Air Force who was FULLY involved in defending the U.K.
Put that in your bong and smoke it, V.!
 

Goodgrief

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
13,792
Likes
156
#18
Oh, another thing about the U.S of A involvement.
The Americans are not a part of the Common Wealth. Therefore, their presence in WWII was not mandatory.

As I mentioned in the above comment, although they didn't officially join the battle until 1941, their support was very strong. They were supplying our Common Wealth troops with equipment and vehicles.
Moreover, when they did join in, they saved Europe's butt. They had resources we no longer had, such as access to fuel, transport facilities, ammo, air cover, ships and fresh troops.
I find it appalling that some people in the U.K hate the U.S of A so much. If they had not come to your defense, helping the dwindling Common Wealth forces, you guys would all be speaking German.

I wish people would learn more about history, especially your recent one.
 

Bamber

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
41,992
Likes
867
#19
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048375]Ah, yes! Tolerance.
Remember back to the early 1930s, if you will.
1933 - Hitler develops a major rearmament campaign. Britain and France do nothing.
1934 - Mussolini conquers Ethiopia. Britain and France do nothing.
1935 - Hitler renounced League of Nations and begins conscription, building a new army. Britain and France do nothing.
1935 June - Britain sabotages the
Stressa Front, allowing Germany to rebuild their navy.
1936 -
Hitler re-militarizes the Rhineland. Britain and France do nothing.
1938 - Hitler annexes Austria. Britain and France do nothing.
1938 - "I believe that Herr Hitler is a man with whom we can do business." Chamberlain
1938 - The Munich Pact gives Hitler the Sudetenland, then all of
Czechoslavia. Chamberlain says "we will have peace in our time"
1939 - Hitler takes Lithuania and the
Freecity of Danzig. Britain and France do nothing.
Chamberlain felt that appeasing Adolf Hitler today would prevent aggression tomorrow.
The British liberals are adopting the same policy today.
Tolerance!
And will you come screaming to the US again, just before you go under, begging for us to pull your chestnuts out of the fire?

T

[/QUOTE]
Facile argument.
An analogy to your point would be comparing fireworks to siege ordnance; both are explosive and cause damage, fireworks when handled badly, the ordnance through violent bombardment. What you advocate would be the equivalent of locking the fireworks away in their factory and throwing in a match: enormously more damaging than treating the fireworks with respect and handling them carefully.

I for one will be eternally grateful for US intervention in both World Wars, but what you appear to be suggesting when you keep reiterating "Britain and France do nothing" (what did the US do, by the way?) is that an arms race should have been instigated, which would probably just have led to an earlier start to war: the outcome would have been just as uncertain. Where was the finance to come from for this escalation? Britain was already bankrupt from the first war and the depression and were lucky to be able to maintain the forces they had, which were barely enough to police the Empire.
 

Bamber

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
41,992
Likes
867
#20
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048394]What cause did we have to enter the Maldives?
And if it hadn't been for the Easter Monday massacre, maybe the Irish ex-pats wouldn't have been so passionate about donating funds.
It sounds like you expect us to take care of you during every conflict, big or small.

And p.s. you didn't answer my question about the 1930s.

T
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5048397]If I'm not mistaken, these occurred during the Presidency of the closet-Muslim.
I wasn't around during the 1930s either, but I do have a Graduate degree in history.
Now tell me again what appeasement did for Britain leading up to the attack on Poland.
You are free to look it up on the Internet if it would patch the holes in your knowledge of history!

T
[/QUOTE]
You may have a graduate degree in history but your grasp of geography is poor: the Maldives are in the Indian Ocean south west of India, the Falklands (Malvinas) are in the Atlantic Ocean east of Patagonia on the southern tip of South America.

A degree in WHAT history, by the way? World history? US history? 5th century Coptic Church history? Although I've spent over 30 years in the computer industry, I know I'm not qualified to use the manufacture and development of computer chip technology, or the corporate structure of the Microsoft Corporation in an argument, so I don't.