[Closed] Another driver rams a crowd

I worry for my kids in many ways, but i also think they will be the ones who fix these problems.

I think we are at peak nobhead about now. Yes, we've always had wars and violence, but when you talk to a child and explain that some people detest others because of the colour of their skin, it gets pretty short shrift.

We just have to make sure that we, their parents don't **** it up so bad that there's nothing left for them to work with when they reach the age where they can make a difference. And don't try to make them 'in our image' because our image is quite a tawdry one IMHO.

It's within our lifetime (some of us!) that segregation was a fact of life. I do believe things are getting better, and will continue to do so. Hideous as they are to the people affected, these are bumps in the road in the grand scheme, and our kids have the ability to drive a **** off big steamroller over them if we allow them to.

People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame.

The fault with race based hate does not lie at the door of liberals and lefties it lies at the door of the right wing and the religious extremists.

Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting idiotic things on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

I assume all parents worry and always did . mine probably worried about a nuclear war killing me [ or my own stupidity in a bike more likely], theirs about genuine food poverty or another world war etc. Its what parents do as we know some aspects of the world are heinous and we just hope our kids never experience it .

I've always said this kind of shit is not defined by religion, it's defined by ignorant, intolerant losers regardless of which colour, race, religion they are.

I'm almost tempted to log on to the sun/mail site to see how many 'they had it coming' comments there are.

If the iman did indeed shield the attacker then it speaks volumes about what Islam or indeed any religion should really be about. Im not sure I'd have been so forgiving.

he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. 'I want to kill Muslims.'"
That'll do for me.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

This 'blame it all on liberal left political correctness' trope has me curious. For some reason it reminded me of an old guy I know. He is a staunch Brexiter, goes out of his way to book white cab drivers (wouldn't book a non-white one), denigrates 'foreigners' in most situations (except for the Swiss, Austrian and Australian for some reason) - anyway - to cut a long story short:

I've never been a footie-fan, and likewise I've never fully got my head around football hooliganism/violence. Always used to wonder why US football was a peaceful family thing by comparison. So one day, in discussion, I decided to pick the brain of this old English guy (him being football-crazy) about when and why football violence began in the UK? He thought for a few seconds, then absolutely floored me:

"It was the middle-class hippies".

'Whaaat?'

"Yes. They were too PC to hit their kids, let them get away with anything, there were no football hooligans before the PC brigade. It was a working-class sport. The hippie-dippy brigade ruined it"

I didn't buy it, so countered with 'violence begets violence?', and declared that most of the aggressive idiots I knew whilst growing up also had violent parents or peers, they were most often poorly educated, ie their peers and fathers were also knuckle-dragging, chauvinist hooligans. The old guy just shook his head and maintained that it was the liberal 'elite'.

I'm not saying that I am right, or that he is right - just that it amazes me how one's world-view/prejudice can be projected into almost any consideration, possibly destroying any chance of objectivity whatsoever.

Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting [s]idiotic things[/s] things they dont agree with on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

There were also some muslims at the scene interviewed (radio 4) saying that this showed the white British population needed educating to rid the nation of anti muslim sentiment. Whilst that might be right that does feel a bit of pot and kettle to me.

Asking for a bit more understanding isn't exclusive to any one set of people.
It's what we do.

Bigotry and ignorance?
Just the same.

If a trait or behaviour is universal, attributing it to just one group is really unhelpful.
It's so prevalent and basically renders pretty much every debate on the subject irrelevant.

It's an awful thing to have happened.

Love to all.

If a trait or behaviour is universal, attributing it to just one group is really unhelpful.
It's so prevalent and basically renders pretty much every debate on the subject irrelevant.

It's an awful thing to have happened.

Love to all.

+1000

oldtalent - Member - Block User - Quote
Liberal lefties dont kill folk they disagree with they just "maul them to death" for posting idiotic things on the internet...I am sure you have experienced this many, many times.

I get the feeling you've experienced it lots oldtalent. You do post a lot of idiotic shite here. Do you do it everywhere else as well?

but when you talk to a child and explain that some people detest others because of the colour of their skin, it gets pretty short shrift.

I've seen this too with my kids (14&12). They are quite happy to accept people for who they are with no predjudice. It gives me hope for the future.

Well in this case it sounds like the guy was actually black.

You sure about that? Just watched footage of them detaining him on telly.

The trouble tackling this is that while the Muslim terrorist is radicalised, the dude that will have done this (probably - based on what we know) will quite likely be a product of our society, ingrained from an early age. One look at the daily mail comments section tells me all I need to know about how ignorant a significant section of society are.

Both are hard to tackle, but the fact that such views are clearly deemed acceptable not just by sections of society, but by our press, is really quite depressing.

This is not to do with the colour of anyone's skin, it's classic human tribalism. Football Hooligans, Teenage Gang Culture, Religion, all group one lot together against the rest.

God knows what drove that guy to do what he did, at least with the ISIS and AlQuadea types at the root there is a 'cause' illfounded or not the perpetrator has been goaded into the belief that his actions will make thing better in some perverse way. White van man is not going to make things better in any way shape or form and now he's trashed his own life for what?

The Muslim community pointing out they'd seen it coming is all very well, but the switch argument is the provocation that some of their number even in low level activities in London get up to in the name of Sharia etc. This is shaping up to be a long hot summer of discontent, I doubt this will be the last we see and until the media is reigned in and as wobbliscot points out, a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)it's unlikely we're all going to just get along fine.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

This implies that the victims not only did something 'wrong' but that they somehow deserved it. I'm not aware that they did.

See also innocent people mown down by other extremists elsewhere.

They didn't deserve it but do we think he's a sensible thinking sort of a chap?

This implies that the victims not only did something 'wrong' but that they somehow deserved it. I'm not aware that they did.

"Revenge" implies that the nutter who drove the van thought his victims did something wrong.

This is either "terrorism" or a "hate crime". I'm not sure of the difference between the two, but I suppose there must be one.

Not really, revenge isn't terrorism. Terrorism wants to achieve something through terror.

The recent attacks in manchester in london are supposedly in revenge for our wars in the middle east- so they arent terroiism too?

This idiot was just responding in a way that benefits no one except the Jihadists who want to ramp up the cycle of violence

much discussion about how we should stop hate speech on facebook/google
but our press are able to spread their own message of hate and sow disunity
[img] [/img]

some of the stuff on twitter etc is depressing as you like, ranging from smug satisfaction to out and out islamaphobia

Same could be said of the London and Manchester attacks. I reckon revenge and payback was probably high on the agenda.

Interesting point was made on the radio that by doing this act the bloke has become exactly what he was so cross about in the first place. Just as the lad who blew himself up in Manchester had been convinced that innocent people were guilty of something, this bloke has been convinced of the same.

Some people will argue about anything!

terrorism
NOUN

mass noun
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

You sure about that? Just watched footage of them detaining him on telly.

The Guardian was reporting witnesses stated that, at least before the videos of the guy getting arrested hit the net.

The recent attacks in manchester in london are supposedly in revenge for our wars in the middle east- so they arent terroiism too?

If the motive is pure revenge, it fails to meet the definition of terrorism. If the motive is to achieve a political objective it does.

My gut feel is Isis have the political motive of provoking an attack on themselves so they can say to other states in their region it's a holy war and to provoke this crazy battle at Dabaq. So I'd call that a political motive, but who can really be sure.

If you can provide a credible source that there was no political motive then, yes, neither attack would have been terrorism.

The boundaries can be quite wooly too with people operating with multiple motives. We all do stuff for more than one reason all the time.

People have become nasty and aggressive rather than curious and objective - and the politically correct liberal crowd are to blame.

[img] [/img]

tpbiker - Member

Same could be said of the London and Manchester attacks. I reckon revenge and payback was probably high on the agenda.

Murder of Lee Rigby: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers" Terrorism, not terrorism? Westminster Bridge attack, Masood allegedly asid in his last Whatsapp message that he was waging jihad in revenge for attacks on muslims- Terrorism, not terrorism? 7/7 bombers- "Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. " Terrorism, not terrorism?

If this was a muslim driving into a crowd shouting allah akbar who would be asking if it's terrorism?

Murder of Lee Rigby: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers" Terrorism, not terrorism? Westminster Bridge attack, Masood allegedly asid in his last Whatsapp message that he was waging jihad in revenge for attacks on muslims- Terrorism, not terrorism? 7/7 bombers- "Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. " Terrorism, not terrorism?

The murderers of Lee Rigby said "Change your government." So on the face of it terrorism because there was a stated political motive. However I'm pretty sure one of them had a personality disorder so perhaps that was the real underlying 'motive'. Perhaps he just liked violence and wanted to down in what he perceived as a blaze of glory. Would he admit that to himself? Very hard to judge motives, we're not always honest with ourselves about motives.

Can you ever trust the perpetrator to be honest about the motive? What if this latest * says he sneezed and left the road by mistake? Would we believe him? If he comes out with a coherant political motive would we beleive him then? Or is he (perhaps like Masood) just a * who gets enough of a thrill out of violence he's prepared to die/spend the rest of his life in jail for one killing spree.

In the case of terrorism if your political objective is to provoke an attack you're hardly going to say so. The 9/11 guys could hardly say "We've done this to trick America into invading the middle east.".

a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)

Nonsense.

even I accept [ and i have been [s]smitted[/s] smote by the hammer of the gods] that:it is never done to stifle debate .

The mods here are generally ok but please do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me ?

There is only so much I can read [ and comprehend] 😉

do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me

Well, ain't you the lucky one. I just get a curt explanation.

Post of the thread is that Alain Delon gif. So far...

a serious debate takes place (Which for example is impossible here without the ban hammer falling)

Serious debates are fine. Always have been.

The mods here are generally ok but please do you have to explain your decision so fully when you e-mail me ?

That'll be your comments copy and pasted, it's so you know which one and a reference for us in the future. Teasel's are exactly the same.

They didn't deserve it but do we think he's a sensible thinking sort of a chap?

I think he was radicalised.

That'll be your comments copy and pasted, it's so you know which one and a reference for us in the future. Teasel's are exactly the same.

No wonder he can't comprehend it, then. (-:

Depends who does it too, of course. Some will be more verbose than others. If it's biting sarcasm it's probably mine.

I think he was radicalised

Yep, but not by sinister people in the shadows - by the very media that is no doubt saying how outrageous it all is.

it was a joke [ and clearly a fail] they usually say negative use of the forum the post and then either deletion or ban

That said i have also received some lengthy ones explaining [ politely] why i should not be a dick and what will happen if i dont.

I have reformed of late [ hopefully] though I am sometimes too rude /strident

The day-to-day stuff like "negative use" is boilerplate text. We don't write that stuff, just hit a button and it auto-populates.

kerley

I think he was radicalised

Yep, but not by sinister people in the shadows - by the very media that is no doubt saying how outrageous it all is.

Given the pervasiveness of this radicalisation how has it not effected more people then?

Terrorist?
Righteous avenging right-wing angel?

Shouldn't matter right now. Those definitions are for a wider debate.

[b]Murderer[/b] of innocents is all that needs to be said about his actions.

Given the pervasiveness of this radicalisation how has it not effected more people then?

just hit a button

Anyway enough of this the mods dont stifle debate they stifle those who are ruining the debate for the majority

Sometimes its deliberate that posters are doing this and sometimes they cannot help themselves but this place would be a horrible mess without them.

Given the pervasiveness of this radicalisation how has it not effected more people then?

Because luckily most people stop at racism (which again the press and social media doesn't help) and don't take it as far as trying to kill others.

Murderer of innocents is all that needs to be said about his actions.

Agree. Let's say he had no political motive, does that make him less of a ****? Not in my book. (Unless he's actually insane, but there's no evidence of that so far.)

Loving the false equivalents stated in this thread. Seems lots of you have blown a fuse and cannot compute 😆 mind you, these are the same left wing loonies who just tried electing a Marxist Chancellor, not that it's done Venezuela's economy any harm. You guys are beyond the pale.

Where as you , and referencing a marxist chancellor in any thread, come across as lucid, agenda free and not at all just turning up here to have your daily rant about left wing loonies whatever the topic

We get it that you dont like lefties- do you prefer BNP Or UKIP these days *?

* he will never get the stewart lee reference so I telegraphed it for him

where is Chewy? or has he been banned as a precaution?

The day-to-day stuff like "negative use" is boilerplate text. We don't write that stuff, just hit a button and it auto-populates.

and I thought I was special!!