Avoid central London - area on lockdown

[ovlov_jay]

Franglais:

OVLOV JAY:

TiredAndEmotional:

the nodding donkey:
I wish you right wing nut cases would get your wish. Unleash a wave of violence and mayhem. I’ll have a whale of a time.

The right wing nutcases are islamic fundamentalists. Can people who oppose that be right wing too?

The fundamentalists are indeed far right, just from a different culture. The trouble is, whilst the centre right oppose it, anyone from the left, condemn anyone right of them as being far right. It’s a bad situation we’ve found ourselves in

We are not in a safe world, but has the world ever been safe? With Twitter, mobile phones with cameras, every incident is reported more than ever and maybe we loose sight of the scale of things? We could end up in a bad situation if we become too intolerant of difference. Those who seek to impose their views and stifle other points of view should be opposed. Opposed within our own democratic system. But to ban all opposition creates more unrest and more hatred and gives more ammunition for the radicals to use against us.

I think the world was safer when Sadam Hussain had his jack boot planted on top of these nut jobs

[the_nodding_donkey]

Franglais:

TiredAndEmotional:

the nodding donkey:
I wish you right wing nut cases would get your wish. Unleash a wave of violence and mayhem. I’ll have a whale of a time.

The right wing nutcases are islamic fundamentalists. Can people who oppose that be right wing too?

“Right Wing” can describe those who are socially conservative and or religiously fundamentalist. Generally those who support the status quo, tradition, oppose change etc. Seems to me there can be “right wing” “nut cases” who are Islamic, equally those who are Christian, or non-religious in the case of nationalism. There can be “right wing” nationalists in the UK as well as, say, Syria, or Israel, the USA or Eire. I dont think any of those examples are overly populated by extremists, but they surely exist in all those countries. I would say its “right wing” to want to oppose freedom of speech and freedom of worship and to seek to dictate any social, or religious, or racial views.

There are problems in giving freedom of speech to those who oppose freedom of speech for others. I dont know of any real solution for that. Its like guaranteeing personal safety and freedom for all by having a police state! The means defeats the objective. We can only ever do away with all risk by living in isolated boxes with no interaction and no real freedoms. Some of the posters on this thread want the state (police etc) to oversee the populace more. Crack down on suspects. How many of them were shouting in other threads about snoopers and cameras, and the high taxes that are needed to fund policing?
It doesnt matter if we were to be oppressed by an Islamic Caliph or a Fundamentalist Christian or an Atheistic Government, they are all "right wing", and would all, through oppression of both opponents and us the population, make us safer. At least thats what they always claim.

Exactly.

(We need a clapping smiley, and a thumbs up smiley. Moderators…)

[newmercman]

Jay, I agree, when Sadam Hussein was the main man, that rabble behaved themselves, that’s what they need, a firm hand, not because they’re lesser mortals than us, but because of the way their religion wants then to live requires it.

I’ve read today that armed Police presence on the streets of London has been doubled, maybe that is their end game, another brick in the wall of a police state? We’ve already got the “feds” monitoring our every move via GCHQ and the proliferation of CCTV cameras, now we’re going to see more and more armed Police on the streets.

Maybe that’s what all this is about, a few tourists and a copper were killed by an unstable maniac, does it warrant the added “security” it wasn’t exactly a 9/11 attack was it? The Hungerford Massacre had more casualties and that was just one bloke who went on a mad one, it’s no different to this “attack” except that this one was in the name of Allah…

[carryfast]

Franglais:

TiredAndEmotional:

the nodding donkey:
I wish you right wing nut cases would get your wish. Unleash a wave of violence and mayhem. I’ll have a whale of a time.

The right wing nutcases are islamic fundamentalists. Can people who oppose that be right wing too?

“Right Wing” can describe those who are socially conservative and or religiously fundamentalist. Generally those who support the status quo, tradition, oppose change etc. Seems to me there can be “right wing” “nut cases” who are Islamic, equally those who are Christian, or non-religious in the case of nationalism. There can be “right wing” nationalists in the UK as well as, say, Syria, or Israel, the USA or Eire. I dont think any of those examples are overly populated by extremists, but they surely exist in all those countries. I would say its “right wing” to want to oppose freedom of speech and freedom of worship and to seek to dictate any social, or religious, or racial views.

There are problems in giving freedom of speech to those who oppose freedom of speech for others. I dont know of any real solution for that. Its like guaranteeing personal safety and freedom for all by having a police state! The means defeats the objective. We can only ever do away with all risk by living in isolated boxes with no interaction and no real freedoms. Some of the posters on this thread want the state (police etc) to oversee the populace more. Crack down on suspects. How many of them were shouting in other threads about snoopers and cameras, and the high taxes that are needed to fund policing?
It doesnt matter if we were to be oppressed by an Islamic Caliph or a Fundamentalist Christian or an Atheistic Government, they are all "right wing", and would all, through oppression of both opponents and us the population, make us safer. At least thats what they always claim.

Let’s get this right you think that removing the idea of the Nation State and imposing Atheism all along Socialist lines,together with obviously leaving the door open to Jihad as part of that,will fix everything.

While yes we want to remove the freedom of Jihad to flourish while at the same time keeping our own freedoms.All of which is doable within a regime which the Socialists would call ‘racist’.That’s devoted to the protection of the Nation State and with it the freedom of our own indigenous religion of Christianity to practice.On that note get used to the idea of left wing and Nationalist which is what will eventually hopefully make the deluded idea of Socialism redundant.

[franglais]

OVLOV JAY:
[quote="r the radicals to use against us.

I think the world was safer when Sadam Hussain had his jack boot planted on top of these nut jobs
[/quote]
Maybe Saddam Hussein was responsible for creating some of these nutters with his overly authoritarian regime? When they were oppressed by him they sought solace in religion? If youve no real hope, I imagine youd need a strong brand of religion to help you along? And you cant hold people under for ever. The Bush/Blair alliance and their war, created what loads of commentators at the time predicted: a power vacuum. And we can now see who is trying to fill it. Dont get me wrong, Im not defending nutters of any type, but some actions are more likely to produce nutters from ordinary citizens than others. Oppressing people may force some to kow-tow, but will make the others stronger and more resistant. Ive got no answers to a risk free, democratic society, but I reckon a too strong knee-jerk reaction will make the world even more dangerous for us in the long run. Stamping too hard on people makes martyrs and heroes of violent resistors.

EDIT, apologies for messing up quotes.

[tommy_t]

switchlogic:

tommy t:

switchlogic:

cav551:
I don’t want to hear from our security and intelligence services that they have got radicalised or jihadi supporters on their radar, and are observing them. That is a reactive stategy - yes maybe they have been successful so far in foiling major planned incidents - but that is not enough. They need to do more than that and be far, far more proactive; they should be rounding these people up, destroying any ‘British’ passports and putting them on the next 'plane to mecca, where they can be welcomed with open arms by similar thinking people, so they can experience the benefits of life living in Shangri-La under their precious sharia law.

Interesting idea but just not possible, international law gets in the way. You can’t simply make someone stateless nor can they go around locking people up because they ‘might’ do something.

Simple we change the laws to enable us to do this

Ha, yes, because it’s that easy…

Luke, if they really wanted to change the laws needed to allow this, they would do it, just as they do when they want to remove our privacy although it will be a lot easier once we are out of the eu,

[newmercman]

Jay, I agree, when Sadam Hussein was the main man, that rabble behaved themselves, that’s what they need, a firm hand, not because they’re lesser mortals than us, but because of the way their religion wants then to live requires it.

I’ve read today that armed Police presence on the streets of London has been doubled, maybe that is their end game, another brick in the wall of a police state? We’ve already got the “feds” monitoring our every move via GCHQ and the proliferation of CCTV cameras, now we’re going to see more and more armed Police on the streets.

Maybe that’s what all this is about, a few tourists and a copper were killed by an unstable maniac, does it warrant the added “security” it wasn’t exactly a 9/11 attack was it? The Hungerford Massacre had more casualties and that was just one bloke who went on a mad one, it’s no different to this “attack” except that this one was in the name of Allah…

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Jay, I agree, when Sadam Hussein was the main man, that rabble behaved themselves,

We couldn’t win either way.Saddam’s end game seems to have been uniting the Arab world under his rule with the obvious aim of then turning on Israel and North on us.All that having been armed to the teeth by Russia and was getting stronger all the time.

Which still leaves the question why did the US regard Saudi as an any better option and likewise arm them to the teeth.When Saudi Wahabbist Islam is as radical as it gets and more dangerous than Saddam was.Using Taqiyya and clandestine invasion of Europe to spread its ( much ) worse ideology and version of Islam than Sadamm’s.IE the Gulf War/s was/were the right answer to the problem but all done in the wrong place at the wrong time,in the wrong sequence,for the wrong reasons.While leaving the worst offender Saudi alone.To the point of stupidly making a so called ‘ally’ out of what is actually an enemy and an even bigger threat to us than Iraq was.Realistically we won’t make the slightest dent in the problem without us taking out both the Iranian and Saudi extremist regimes.As for Turkey might as well find out where it stands sooner rather than later in that regard.

As for removal of freedoms.It would be no problem for the security services to impose what’s needed without affecting the indigenous,non Islamic,population to any large scale noticeable degree.Which it usually ends up filtering out anyway by natural selection.But then we’d have the deluded lefties shouting racist.All of which would be moot anyway if we do eventually get our act together and go for Saudi and Iran.Because then we’d see exactly who and how many of the Islamic population here regard themselves as ‘Brit’ first and foremost.As opposed to their loyalties being with their Islamic Middle Eastern masters.

[ovlov_jay]

Franglais:

OVLOV JAY:
[quote="r the radicals to use against us.

I think the world was safer when Sadam Hussain had his jack boot planted on top of these nut jobs

Maybe Saddam Hussein was responsible for creating some of these nutters with his overly authoritarian regime? When they were oppressed by him they sought solace in religion? If youve no real hope, I imagine youd need a strong brand of religion to help you along? And you cant hold people under for ever. The Bush/Blair alliance and their war, created what loads of commentators at the time predicted: a power vacuum. And we can now see who is trying to fill it. Dont get me wrong, Im not defending nutters of any type, but some actions are more likely to produce nutters from ordinary citizens than others. Oppressing people may force some to kow-tow, but will make the others stronger and more resistant. Ive got no answers to a risk free, democratic society, but I reckon a too strong knee-jerk reaction will make the world even more dangerous for us in the long run. Stamping too hard on people makes martyrs and heroes of violent resistors.

EDIT, apologies for messing up quotes.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. These barbaric monsters have always had these ideologies and beliefs. Before Blair and Bush deposed Sadam, they were under control. You call it oppression, I call it control. For all Sadams faults, people weren’t worried to walk the streets of London, Paris, New York or any other big city

[winseer]

TiredAndEmotional:

the nodding donkey:
I wish you right wing nut cases would get your wish. Unleash a wave of violence and mayhem. I’ll have a whale of a time.

The right wing nutcases are islamic fundamentalists. Can people who oppose that be right wing too?

Our divisions are not about “Race” or “Religion” or “Political Class” any more.

You can be a “National Socialist Worker’s Party” and be considered “Right wing”.
You can be “Pro Apartheid” and be considered “Right wing”.
I can’t see how you can be a white-hating ideological zealot - and also be called “Right Wing” though.
The Far Left wouldn’t be allying with these people if that were the case either.

Perhaps a re-definition of what is thought to be “Right Wing” is in order:

If you are worried about being attacked by others whom your state won’t stop - Does that give you “Right Wing” tendencies, or are you just “Survivalist”?

If you are worried about all those in your own camp who’ve renounced their own religion, and don’t care what another religion they don’t believe in may well do to you in it’s name at some future point - Does that make you “Right Wing” or even a “Religious Bigot” or just “God Fearing”?

If you profess to be against “all religions”, but not Islam - does that make you an idiot who doesn’t understand even their own definitions - or could it be that Islam is not a religion at all - it’s an ideology that’s Left in the same vein as a Socialist Worker’s Party of ill-repute?

ISIS will attack those who are “not of Islam”
If you ARE of Islam but refuse to kill any Infidels for them, and refuse to bow the knee to the as yet un-named Caliph that is to come - you’re just as likely to be a target of ISIS hostility as if you were the Whitest, most Pius, most Unbigoted person on Earth right now…
If you ARE of Islam, but are not Arab in Race, not living in the middle east of Geography, and don’t even vote for Leftie parties in your new chosen destination country

• You’re A-OK to ISIS as long as you break some heads in quick order. A person who can be ordered to carry out a suicide attack.
  Trouble is, when successful - you only get one shot at it. Even ISIS say then, that the only good ‘soldier’ of their own - is a dead one.

Drop “Left” and “Right” - They are just the grounds to set up a civil war between Westerners everywhere, and totally ignore the bigger picture that “Barbarism” is making a huge comeback in politics today.

Farage, Le Pen or even Corbyn and Farron are NOT our enemies. they just cannot get elected by fair means at present, and the time will eventually come where we’ll all be punished for making that the case.

More balance in one post than the BBC put out in a year.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Corbyn and Farron are NOT our enemies. they just cannot get elected by fair means at present, and the time will eventually come where we’ll all be punished for making that the case.

I’d suggest that Corbyn and Farron are more dangerous than ‘ISIS’ ( I’d include the Saudi and Iranian Islamic regimes in that ).Because Jihad is a product of its own geographic region which can be isolated,corralled there and then wiped out if needed given the commitment to do it and assuming it refuses to surrender and disarm and stop its aim of establishing a European Caliphate.

However Corbyn and Farron are both enemies of the idea of the Nation State ( anti Nationalist )including obviously their own Nation State as part of that.

Who will,as part of that,hypocritically preach that all of the immigrant community is as supposedly ‘British’ as the indigenous community on one hand.While then contradicting that idea by saying that Jihad on our streets is the result of the defence of our National interest,conflicting with the opposing foreign interest of much that same immigrant community.IE apologists for the idea of split loyalties among a significant part of the immigrant community.

They’ll also happily dissolve our National borders.To further their own Socialist driven ideologies of a one world without borders,allowing Jihad to just walk in across those dissolved borders as part of that.

[winseer]

Surely the socialist dream here is that each and every immigrant fully integrates, or at least converts us already here to their way of life, whilst showing eternal gratitude to the establishment that let them in by voting for that establishment…

Now, even if they did all that - we’d all be Muslim by 2050 and the electorate will STILL be split between Labour and Libdem making them both unelectable. A Tory dictatorship is therefore assured - if we carry on like we are right now.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Surely the socialist dream here is that each and every immigrant fully integrates, or at least converts us already here to their way of life, whilst showing eternal gratitude to the establishment that let them in by voting for that establishment…

Now, even if they did all that - we’d all be Muslim by 2050 and the electorate will STILL be split between Labour and Libdem making them both unelectable. A Tory dictatorship is therefore assured - if we carry on like we are right now.

More like if the Socialists are allowed to succeed in creating local immigrant demographic majorities with the Islamic one holding most of the cards it won’t be a Tory dictatorship that takes advantage of that.It’ll be the immigrant Sharia regimes set up in their main enclaves.At which the point the Socialists will suddenly discover that they are as relevant as the Soviets found themselves in their supposed Afghan and Cechen Socialist utopia and the Yugoslav Socialists found themselves in theirs and facing the same type of Jihadist fight for self determination as a result.The Conservatives having long since suddenly discovered that their cheap labour plan has backfired on them catastrophically long before that point.With at best Britain probably having to be split along the lines of Islamic Sharia run zones with maybe other indigenous enclaves where the Conservative vote remains.At least until the Islamic population demographic gets enough numbers to take out those remaining indigenous enclaves too.

While as it stands for all their posturing neither even Trump nor Putin let alone our government show any real commitment to cutting off the two heads of the two snakes in the form of Iran and Saudi. More like continuing with the same old stupid alliances and complicity with those two savage regimes which are based on radical fundamentalist Islam and which are mostly the cause of the problem.

[switchlogic]

tommy t:
Luke, if they really wanted to change the laws needed to allow this, they would do it, just as they do when they want to remove our privacy although it will be a lot easier once we are out of the eu,

Ah, the dreaded ‘they’. Would they be related to ‘the man’ and/or the Illuminati?

[halewood]

eagerbeaver:

halewood:

the maoster:
It goes without saying that my thoughts go to any innocents who were injured (or worse) here. A part of me however is quite happy that this is a case of the chickens coming home to roost and I’m happy that those in power who make decisions on unfettered and rampant immigration are finally themselves seeing the harsh reality of their liberalism.

Oops.British born and bred,from the EDL/UKIP heartland of Kent and even called Adrian.

Yep, well pointed out. Not only a terrorist, but a British born TRAITOR terrorist…

Good spot Another smart arse scouser (who can’t even get in at ASDA! )

Haha playing the long game la!! I’ll be there 6 months and then retire.Or long term sick!

[franglais]

OVLOV JAY:
These barbaric monsters have always had these ideologies and beliefs. Before Blair and Bush deposed Sadam, they were under control. You call it oppression, I call it control. For all Sadams faults, people weren’t worried to walk the streets of London, Paris, New York or any other big city

There are those who use the Quran to justify their actions, although most Muslims would say that interpretation of their holy book is wrong.
Before that we had those who looked at the Bible to justify their actions. Most would say that is equally wrong.
I would say that Saddam was pretty barbaric with 250,000 deaths or more due to his regime. I would say also that his regime was more split along tribal rather than religious lines, although there were religious differences.

Anyway, deaths due to terrorism in the UK:
2010 til now, about 14.
2000s about 56. The 70s 80s and 90s had about 3,500 deaths in the UK due to terrorism, courtesy of “The Troubles”. That includes Soldiers killed, so maybe not “the streets of London”.
So, how about, the deaths by terrorists on the UK mainland?
1990s under 20. 1980s about 53.
1970`s about 43.
Terrorism by Islamic and other extremists IS a problem, and it seems that more terror attacks are being thwarted by the security forces, thankfully.

The streets of New York? From over 500 deaths per annum in 2010 its now down to a bit over 300 deaths per year. Much better than the 70s 80s and 90s when it was over 1500 deaths each year. That is hundreds more violent deaths in one city each year than we have here in a decade! So we`re much safer in the UK than on the streets of N.Y. City. Deaths by terrorism make huge headlines here, deaths in N.Y. are just same old, same old hence no fuss is made.

The figure I`ve given are listed in Wikipedia and are verifiable through links to their sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … at_Britain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

[olog_hai]

OVLOV JAY:
For all Sadams faults, people weren’t worried to walk the streets of London, Paris, New York or any other big city

Normal people aren’t ‘worried to walk the streets’ of those cities or any other, as you put it. Hysterical, paranoid people may be, but normal people are not.

[the_nodding_donkey]

Olog Hai:

OVLOV JAY:
For all Sadams faults, people weren’t worried to walk the streets of London, Paris, New York or any other big city

Normal people aren’t ‘worried to walk the streets’ of those cities or any other, as you put it. Hysterical, paranoid people may be, but normal people are not.

I’m far more worried about getting mugged or stabbed by a (non religious, non funfamentalist, non specific race or colour) scrote,for my wallet or phone, than being involved in a 'terrorist ’ attack.

[ovlov_jay]

Olog Hai:

OVLOV JAY:
For all Sadams faults, people weren’t worried to walk the streets of London, Paris, New York or any other big city

Normal people aren’t ‘worried to walk the streets’ of those cities or any other, as you put it. Hysterical, paranoid people may be, but normal people are not.

I’m not suggesting people are worried to the point of staying away, far from it. But it’s now a thought in your head, just the same as the thinking that there’s a chance you may be mugged. Anyone in the centre ground of politics will acknowledge the threat, just seems that the left want to completely deny it, even when it happens

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
Surely the socialist dream here is that each and every immigrant fully integrates, or at least converts us already here to their way of life, whilst showing eternal gratitude to the establishment that let them in by voting for that establishment…

Now, even if they did all that - we’d all be Muslim by 2050 and the electorate will STILL be split between Labour and Libdem making them both unelectable. A Tory dictatorship is therefore assured - if we carry on like we are right now.

More like if the Socialists are allowed to succeed in creating local immigrant demographic majorities with the Islamic one holding most of the cards it won’t be a Tory dictatorship that takes advantage of that.It’ll be the immigrant Sharia regimes set up in their main enclaves.At which the point the Socialists will suddenly discover that they are as relevant as the Soviets found themselves in their supposed Afghan and Cechen Socialist utopia and the Yugoslav Socialists found themselves in theirs and facing the same type of Jihadist fight for self determination as a result.The Conservatives having long since suddenly discovered that their cheap labour plan has backfired on them catastrophically long before that point.With at best Britain probably having to be split along the lines of Islamic Sharia run zones with maybe other indigenous enclaves where the Conservative vote remains.At least until the Islamic population demographic gets enough numbers to take out those remaining indigenous enclaves too.

While as it stands for all their posturing neither even Trump nor Putin let alone our government show any real commitment to cutting off the two heads of the two snakes in the form of Iran and Saudi. More like continuing with the same old stupid alliances and complicity with those two savage regimes which are based on radical fundamentalist Islam and which are mostly the cause of the problem.

Nu Labour’s master plan was to bring in deflation to the UK. They saw the Tories become these hated figures because of 15% interest rates, collapsed housing market, and re-possessed homes. It was all about “What do you own”. Gordon Brown gave away control of interest rates before his arse had warmed the chair of number 10. Falling interest rates and loose bank lending without rent controls led to a BTL housing boom that is still going, long after the residential boom has died the death from “lack of access to cheap mortgages” over a decade gone by this point. Who gets re-possessed these days, with “Generation Rent”? The young workers are all worse off than we were 25 years ago, even at the height of the property slump then.

Hitler was a deflationist too of course. He also called “Socialist”. He also declared war upon the monied of his day - Jewish Business leaders, Jewish Bankers, Jewish Shopkeepers… Jewish anyone - since he had pretty much made them the scapegoats in a similar way the Hard Left try to label “anyone earning more than minimum wage is scum” - which is why they keep losing elections of course.

The Momentum movement behind the current Labour Party grows more and more like the ■■■■ Brownshirts every day. The Mass hysteria (also used by Hitler) is palpable in the on-line community today.
The death threats for anyone that doesn’t agree with them - are real too of course.
All this has the net effect of voting for someone like Thatcher for years and years - because letting Labour back in now - is too horrible to contemplate.

I never voted for Thatcher. I never voted for Blair. I did vote for Paddy Ashdown’s Libdems for a number of elections though, both council and general.
Brexit was my first vote for “The Winner” though. Not much of a track record for someone who always votes and for 30 odd years now - is it?