Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
If that's aimed at me that isn't exactly what happened, someone claimed the Quran didn't encourage killing innocent people. I stated the Quran does incite violence and Muhammad did massacre people and an angry muslim started calling me 'ignorant', so I brought further materials to back up my point. This discussion will be taken to another thread now though as it's derailing the thread.
RIP to the dead and thoughts with their families.
Found out this morning about the lady that died on the bridge and the 48 year old police officer, father and husband. 
RIP all 3 that died.
RIP all 3 that died.I'm pretty sure that it is used in sensitivity by the press as not to encourage the likes of Farage and worse to cause civil unrest rather than as a racist conspiracy.
Actually there's quite a few of them. Samoans come to mind.Now you mention it, I've never met a non-white mormon.
Luckily Farage isn't one for waiting for these things as both he and libeller extraordinaire Katie Hopkins were on Faux News overnight, saying how this proves the need for a travel ban and vetting immigrants
So now emerges that the attacker was actually shot by personal security, and not armed guards stationed inside the building. Even more shocking how poor the level of security was.
IS claims responsibility (according to public German radio station) for the Westminster attack.
Who's personal security? And source?
You can have a laugh at many things, but ridiculing and insulting someone's deep personal beliefs is another matter entirely. You just made a blanket statement and made assumptions which ironically the the whole point around this discussion
Can we take them seriously. Seems like they'll claim any terror attack as their own, even if it is someone just imitating their modus operandi.
I wish the media would stop dramatising these events, i know they have their own vested interest but it just gives these loons exactly what they want and feeds into the great threat narrative. His objective wasn't to kill it was to create and spread fear and the media predictably aids in this once again.
Also Facebook is full of the usual idiots gaining enjoyment from the drama of it all. I don't care if you were their last week so shook up and i don't need to know your safe if you live in fecking Bristol. Bottom feeders
Also Facebook is full of the usual idiots gaining enjoyment from the drama of it all. I don't care if you were their last week so shook up and i don't need to know your safe if you live in fecking Bristol. Bottom feeders
He was British. Now that he has killed people for whatever reasons, he is just British born
Al Qaeda used to do it in their prime days. Now IS is following same pattern. The dead guy is not going to come out and say "Hey no!! I am not one of them" and by the time authorities investigate and declare he was not with IS, common men would have moved on to the next big news.
Laura Kuenssberg on daily politics said that it was one of the bodyguards for Michael Fallon who shot the attacker, who in normal circumstances would not be there. Which if is indeed the case is a massive security blunder as the attacker could have gone further.
No, this is not the reason it's being said.
As shite and overblown as the coverage is, I'm pleased they're not naming the perpetrator. At least they're denying him the notoriety he probably craved.
The problem the news channels/sites face is that they're competing with people tweeting stuff from the scene. I guess once these images are in the public domain, they (rightly or wrongly) feel it's fit to broadcast/publish them. In their quest to remain relevent, they're broadcasting images that breach certain levels of decency in my opinion.
For me they are free to think he is evil or to think he is fictional but as long as we don't hurt each others physically or through words it's fine, I don't appreciate some idiot calling my beliefs as fairy tales though when I have done nothing bad to them.
A range of articles using the term "British-born":
BBC Reith Lecture hosted by the University of Glasgow
Vidal Sassoon, British-born celebrity hairdresser, dies - BBC News
Tim Peake set for first spacewalk by British astronaut - BBC News
Rudolf Abel: The Soviet spy who grew up in England - BBC News
It is merely context, and not worthy of this brewing storm in a teacup.
BBC Reith Lecture hosted by the University of Glasgow
Vidal Sassoon, British-born celebrity hairdresser, dies - BBC News
Tim Peake set for first spacewalk by British astronaut - BBC News
Rudolf Abel: The Soviet spy who grew up in England - BBC News
It is merely context, and not worthy of this brewing storm in a teacup.
Last edited:
Personally, I think there's more to it. If we go back to earlier attacks such as 9 /11 the people involved were either from other countries or naturalised citizens of the country. So, either foreigners or "not really from here" implying a lack of integration or shared culture. Then people born and bred in the country began taking part in attacks, which shocked people because they assumed that they had taken on board all the values of that country, that they were indeed Americans or British or French. Others said "Look, it's nothing to do with Islam, these are British people doing this...."
In my view it's related to identity, which can be external - where you were born, but also internal - who are you as an individual ? Here is the complex part because due to your identity, your loyalty may be given to others, which could be a political movement such as the Communist Movement, the IRA, a Fascist movement or any of a whole range of groups.
It reminds me of the religious wars in 16th/17th century Europe. You could be English and a Roman Catholic but in a Protestant state, in which case your duty was to the "true church" but which was also a "foreign power".
I think the official name of the main opposition party in Parliament is "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".
Hope that makes sense !
You can have a laugh at many things, but ridiculing and insulting someone's deep personal beliefs is another matter entirely. You just made a blanket statement and made assumptions which ironically the the whole point around this discussion
There are very good reasons why most of the West has legislation to protect such 'ridiculing' and 'insults', etc. It's not that long ago in the grand scheme of things that Europeans were willing to kill each other over questions such as the nature of Christ's divinity. Any declaration by members of one sect on these issues that contradicted the "deep personal beliefs" of another sect could be taken as a grand provocation, deeply insulting, and used as a casus beli for acts of persecution and murder. Now imagine these conditions still existed in Europe today - it would put European Muslims, who deny the divinity of Christ altogether, in a potentially fatal position (as indeed it did Spanish Muslims in the 16th c.). Fortunately the laws protecting freedom of expression allow Muslims - of all sects without distinction (unlike in much of the Islamic world) - and every other religious group the freedom to worship and proselytise as they please. You cannot separate this freedom from the freedom cartoonists or anyone else have to mock and insult. They are inextricably entwined.
I think like @Classical Mechanic said, it is somewhat there to protect immigrants and refugees.
On face value though, I can understand it feeling a bit like a slap in the face. 'You are British born, but not totally British'
There are armed police both inside and patrolling the environs of parliament. He would have been stopped.
Even if not directly instructed/working with them, he's no doubt had dealings with people that do and been heavily influenced by their material. I'd bet my non-existent house on it. So it's still IS.
I just read this before hitting post and it sounds he's been plenty involved. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39363297
I just read this before hitting post and it sounds he's been plenty involved. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39363297
I agree completely with what you said. I don't agree with the double standards where "we" can say this or do that but get offended when people don't like it. Also there is never an excuse to harm people physicaly etc...
Absolute rubbish. People should be able to make fun of whatever the feck they want.You can have a laugh at many things, but ridiculing and insulting someone's deep personal beliefs is another matter entirely. You just made a blanket statement and made assumptions which ironically the the whole point around this discussion
When The Life of Brian was first released it was banned in the UK because it was deemed too offensive to Christians and then as time went on it was permitted to be shown. Its also one of the funniest films ever in my opinion. Some people find the subject matter distasteful, some don't, but that should not a reason that nobody can watch it.
Because that's what happens
Civil or uncivil, it should be allowed and encouraged. For far too long religion has been that one big elephant in the room which no on wants to have a go at for fear of being politically incorrect when essentially it's one of the biggest cons pulled in history.
I agree with most/all but with this part. Why is this the case? It is not like its anything that requires more than rudimentary mental effort. Why am I allowed to mock and insult someone in society just because I disagree with them? where does it stop? I don't like someone's mother so I should be free to mock and insult her and have some sort of righteous indignation when someone gets offended and lord it over them as "free speech". I would argue that The individual and their belief are far more entwined and therfore if you insult and mock their belief you are insulting them and it is undesirable they will display a wide range of resentment depending on the person/situation.
Free speech has/is been hijacked by insidious individuals like a wolf in sheep's clothing or is being used as a trojan horse to incite hatred filled agendas.
Who judges what is a personal held belief and what is fair game? My personal beliefs are probably completely different from your's. I accept that living in a free society you can laugh at mine.You can have a laugh at many things, but ridiculing and insulting someone's deep personal beliefs is another matter entirely. You just made a blanket statement and made assumptions which ironically the the whole point around this discussion
Things going on in Antwerp (BE) at the moment. Car with French plates intercepted at the quays. Belga reporting that the mayor of Antwerp will hold a press conference about an terrorist attack being stopped.
In Dutch
http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170323_02795393/verdachte-wagen-onderschept-aan-scheldekaaien
In Dutch
http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170323_02795393/verdachte-wagen-onderschept-aan-scheldekaaien
Because there's such a fine line between mocking beliefs and simply disagreeing with them. We see this all the time in the football fora. If someone says something that seems risible (which literally means so wrong it's funny) then people will mock that belief. If people are free to disagree with beliefs/opinions then they have to be free to mock them. The matter of what is and isn't good manners should never be an issue for the law.
I don't think anyone who satirises religious figures is ever going to lose any sleep or have any 'righteous indignation' when somebody gets offended. Being offended is fine. What isn't fine is then going and killing that person.
your post is incoherent.
Your opinion of what you find funny or not is no benchmark of how we should conduct ourselves in society. Some people find racism funny, should we celebrate that as well?
"People should be able to make fun of whatever the feck they want."
So in your opinion people can make the fun out of the disabled, the weak and every other category of person and its ok because of its "freedom of speech". There is a reason we have rules in civilized societies.
Now that my friend is Absolute rubbish...
It is, sadly, human nature to react badly when one is contradicted or when one's opinions are challenged; yet we're supposed to believe that it's noble, selfless and progressive to deliberately provoke others because of their beliefs? This is fighting conviction with immaturity, a battle no-one wins; worse, it smacks of vanity.
Yes, you can. But if you belittle and bully someone or a group in public or otherwise consistently then guess what... It is not as simple as that is it?
No but it is fine to criticise or satirise someones philosophical positions, it is healthy in fact.
They're entwined because what constitutes an insult or mockery is subjective. A Christian may find a Muslim's denial of the divinity of Jesus every bit as insulting as a Muslim finds a cartoon of Muhammad which the cartoonist meant as a piece of political satire, not provocation. By the logic of those who would ban the cartoon, the denial of Jesus's divinity must therefore also be banned.
Personally I find the idea that a saintly old woman like my late grandmother is now burning in hell for eternity because she didn't believe in any of the religions to be a deeply offensive one, never mind the idea that the supreme being responsible for putting her there should be worshipped. I'd actually say an idea like that is grounds for a lot more offence than a stupid cartoon which wouldn't have even been seen by anyone had the outrage brigade not manufactured a controversy over it. So by the logic of banning expressions that give offence, such ideas should not be allowed to be propagated.
Take the case of Pakistan, where Ahmadis suffer state-sponsored persecution because the mainstream ulama of the country believe they deny the finality of Muhammad's prophecy - that is the kind of situation that European Muslims might face if their freedom to express beliefs others find offensive was not protected.
The problem is we are not talking about football banter here. Its not good manners or bad manners it is about your right not to be marginalized about your belief and not bullied about them either.
There are no rules about jokes at the expense of weak or disabled people. Nor should there be.