|
Post by bodger on Jun 19, 2017 12:14:18 GMT
when we stormed into the Falklands and 'won'. That's odd ..... My memory says that it was Galtieri stormed into the Falklands. obviously you must be mistaken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 12:25:25 GMT
PM Theresa May said this was "an attack on Muslims"
Its reassuring we have such intelligent individuals in charge. I would never have guessed !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 12:56:35 GMT
when we stormed into the Falklands and 'won'. That's odd ..... My memory says that it was Galtieri stormed into the Falklands. You seem to have a very distorted view of history That's not the point I was trying to make though it was it? The point I was trying to make is that Thatcher and the Tories won a lot of glory over it. If you want to get boring we could discuss what we were doing in the Falklands in the first place. Having said all that, yes it could well be written off as just another conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jun 19, 2017 13:07:10 GMT
That's odd ..... My memory says that it was Galtieri stormed into the Falklands. You seem to have a very distorted view of history That's not the point I was trying to make though it was it? The point I was trying to make is that Thatcher and the Tories won a lot of glory over it. If you want to get boring we could discuss what we were doing in the Falklands in the first place. Having said all that, yes it could well be written off as just another conspiracy theory. Not at all, it was well known at the time that diplomatically the argies were tipped the wink that we weren't that bothered about the Falklands so landed a few dispensable conscripts onto the islands to see what would happen. A setup as the following events demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 19, 2017 15:32:51 GMT
That's odd ..... My memory says that it was Galtieri stormed into the Falklands. You seem to have a very distorted view of history That's not the point I was trying to make though it was it? The point I was trying to make is that Thatcher and the Tories won a lot of glory over it. If you want to get boring we could discuss what we were doing in the Falklands in the first place. Having said all that, yes it could well be written off as just another conspiracy theory. Hardly glory, but would you have preferred to give in and let a territory and population that considered itself British and had been under British rule from before the Argentine Republic existed to fall under the heel of a brutal military Junta ? People using a similar argument suggested we should have continued appeasing Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2017 15:47:46 GMT
Back on topic, the radicalisation of this terrorist needs thorough examination. Where might we start...Mail, Express, Sun, Star...EDL....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 16:38:44 GMT
Back on topic, the radicalisation of this terrorist needs thorough examination. Where might we start...Mail, Express, Sun, Star...EDL.... Probably cwdf.... 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 17:03:01 GMT
That's not the point I was trying to make though it was it? The point I was trying to make is that Thatcher and the Tories won a lot of glory over it. If you want to get boring we could discuss what we were doing in the Falklands in the first place. Having said all that, yes it could well be written off as just another conspiracy theory. Hardly glory, but would you have preferred to give in and let a territory and population that considered itself British and had been under British rule from before the Argentine Republic existed to fall under the heel of a brutal military Junta ? People using a similar argument suggested we should have continued appeasing Hitler. Well that is another view, you're still avoiding my main point though and now throwing Hitler in to the argument. Either way we don't have a true democracy as we, and the politicians, are still controlled by those in ivory towers. They never seem to get blown up, run down, or lead battles from the front line. There was a time they did.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Jun 19, 2017 17:06:25 GMT
The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved).
Ergo, it was a terrorist act.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 19, 2017 17:15:37 GMT
Hardly glory, but would you have preferred to give in and let a territory and population that considered itself British and had been under British rule from before the Argentine Republic existed to fall under the heel of a brutal military Junta ? People using a similar argument suggested we should have continued appeasing Hitler. Well that is another view, you're still avoiding my main point though and now throwing Hitler in to the argument. Either way we don't have a true democracy as we, and the politicians, are still controlled by those in ivory towers. They never seem to get blown up, run down, or lead battles from the front line. There was a time they did. You also have to stop implying wrongdoing without researching the facts .... you implied that the British should not have been there ..... I suggest you have a little browse through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islandsdon't use incredibly complex historical situations as simplistic examples. (and incidentally if you don't think that Argentina's Junta was an evil regime then can I point you to this) .... www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21884147
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 17:17:10 GMT
The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved). Ergo, it was a terrorist act. Maybe it should be called an anger act. It all depends whether he was brainwashed by someone. Maybe you could argue he was through the media. Kind of remote terrorism then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 17:29:18 GMT
The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved). Ergo, it was a terrorist act. Hmm There are suggestions that the man who died was receiving medical attention and may not have died as a result of the vehicle incident. And I disagree about it being terrorism. The authorities are using this term but it does not seem appropriate. Terrorism needs organising. Calling it an act of terrorism is throwing petrol on the fire !
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Jun 19, 2017 17:35:46 GMT
The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved). Ergo, it was a terrorist act. Hmm There are suggestions that the man who died was receiving medical attention and may not have died as a result of the vehicle incident. And I disagree about it being terrorism. The authorities are using this term but it does not seem appropriate. Terrorism needs organising. Calling it an act of terrorism is throwing petrol on the fire ! One Muslim was reported as saying that his community 'didn't feel safe'. In other words, he was terrorised. Looking at it a different way, if the authorities didn't call it a terrorist act there would be accusations of racism and bias; it's only terrorism if the perpetrators are Muslim...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 17:42:39 GMT
Well that is another view, you're still avoiding my main point though and now throwing Hitler in to the argument. Either way we don't have a true democracy as we, and the politicians, are still controlled by those in ivory towers. They never seem to get blown up, run down, or lead battles from the front line. There was a time they did. You also have to stop implying wrongdoing without researching the facts .... you implied that the British should not have been there ..... I suggest you have a little browse through en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islandsdon't use incredibly complex historical situations as simplistic examples. (and incidentally if you don't think that Argentina's Junta was an evil regime then can I point you to this) .... www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21884147TBH it just looks like you are tying to take me down a different road because you aren't comfortable with the idea we are ALL being controlled by those in ivory towers (albeit indirectly through the media and monetary system. I'd be interested in your views about that but as for the history of who started which wars, there are people on this forum far better qualified.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Jun 19, 2017 17:44:07 GMT
The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved). Ergo, it was a terrorist act. Maybe it should be called an anger act. It all depends whether he was brainwashed by someone. Maybe you could argue he was through the media. Kind of remote terrorism then. He doesn't have to have been brainwashed by someone for it to be terrorism. Nothing depends on that at all. The fact that the 47 year old white man is thick as a brick and can't tell the difference between Islamic Terrorists and Muslims doesn't detract from the fact that he killed people and attempted to create terror within the Muslim community (something which has been reported that he's achieved). Ergo, it was a terrorist act. Hmm There are suggestions that the man who died was receiving medical attention and may not have died as a result of the vehicle incident. And I disagree about it being terrorism. The authorities are using this term but it does not seem appropriate. Terrorism needs organising. Calling it an act of terrorism is throwing petrol on the fire ! Terrorism doesn't need to be organised. A terrorist can act alone and impulsively if he so wishes. Where are you fuckwits getting your definition of terrorism from?
|
|