Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bounce

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well that's what the discussion is about. Should attacks like London Bridge be reported as hate crimes or terrorist attacks. Recent example of terrorist attack with a knife which didn't make the headlines https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-49652977 I'm glad you agree.
  2. I suppose so but not everyone who came here was a refugee. Many South Asian Muslims had grandparents in the British army or the NHS. Many others came to work in industry because Britain invited them to do so from former colonies. This demographic makes up the vast majority of Muslims in the UK. Britain came to pre partition India first under the guise of business then took over the country, before leaving it in pieces a few hundred years later. South Asians have never invaded the UK, and probably contributed the most out of any minority ethnic group here.
  3. Clearly you haven't understood the thread. I suggest you read the original post again. Smaller scale religiously motivated attacks. Fewer casualties with weapons such as knives, bats, acid etc. It seems that if the perpetrator is Muslim you find it making headlines as a "terror attack". If the victim is Muslim its either reported as a hate crime only or if it is reported as a terror attack it doesn't make headlines and there is much less hysteria surrounding the incident. Conspiracy is a term used to dismiss evidence. Often when someone has no argument they will use conspiracy theory as a rebuttal. However I'm not prepared to get into a new discussion about 7/7 with you.
  4. They are indeed but then shouldn't small scale attacks like London Bridge also be called hate crimes? The point here is that certain religiously motivated hate crimes are reported as "terror attacks" and others are not. This horrific case in an example of that. 7/7 discussions from 10 years ago are irrelevant to the topic.
  5. Well I think the point here is that some smaller scale attacks are referred to as "terrorism" while others are not. The Dresden case is a poignant example. There are many cases in the UK as well, motivated by religious hatred and not called terrorism. Their seems to be a degree of selective labelling going on, based on the background of the attacker.
  6. I don't see your point 7/7 has got nothing to do with the thread. It occurred over 14 years ago and despite differing views on the subject, I don't see its relevance to the discussion.
  7. I don't recall bringing it up previously, although I may have done in a different context. I have explained my reasons for bringing it up in the original post. The very fact that it happened in a courtroom and the security managed to shoot the victims husband rather than the attacker makes it a good example.
  8. I understand that specific incidents such as Finsbury Park and NZ were reported as terror attacks. I'm more concerned with stabbings or seriouse physical assaults perpetrated against Muslims which occur more regularly. These crimes are usually reported as "religiously motivated hate crimes" if reported at all. It seems that when the perpetrator is deemed to be Muslim and the victim non Muslim the narrative changes instantly. It goes from being a stabbing incident to a major terrorist attack. That's not to take away from the victims of any form of violence for whatever motivation. However if the crime is religiously motivated the terror attack label shouldn't be applied selectively. My personal opinion is that a terror attack is a large scale attack. A bombing or a mass shooting at the least. In my view these smaller scale crimes are religiously motivated hate crimes rather than terrorist attacks. Of course in the majority of cases stabbings in the UK have no religious motive. And in the USA regular mass shootings tend to be a white supremacist issue but the mainstream media will use terms such as "mass shooting" and "gunman".
  9. Sherbini, a pharmacist who was four months' pregnant and wore the Islamic head scarf, was involved in a court case against her neighbour after he called her a terrorist. She was due to testify when he stabbed her 18 times inside the courtroom in front of her three-year-old son. The woman's husband was critically wounded in the attack, after he tried to intervene and was stabbed by the attacker and accidentally shot by court security. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/07/muslim-woman-shot-germany-court So the reason I bring this up now is because of how the London Bridge murders are being reported. I chose the Dresden example because it took place in a courtroom, of all places. Furthermore the security shot her husband who was trying to defend her, rather than the terrorist. However, it seems that the attacker was not a terrorist, in fact I haven't come across a single anti Muslim hate crime being reported as terrorism in the mainstream media. This is only one of many attacks on Muslim women motivated by an evil ideology. Just type "Muslim woman attacked" into google, you will find case after case. So why aren't these attacks being reported as "terror attacks". Your thoughts?
  10. What makes you think people in Iraq and Syria live in Caves? Iraq was a peaceful country before you know who went in there all guns blazing and destroyed the country with no plan for the aftermath. Interesting how Daeesh has its roots in the aftermath of Iraq.
  11. Why do you think it is okay to send someone to a country of dual nationality if they are a suspect in the UK? Send them to another country to commit an offence against people in that country. How can that be morally justified? ---------- Post added 04-06-2017 at 15:32 ---------- Of course there are, it requires voting for the right sort of politician in the upcoming general election.
  12. Iraq was a democratic decision. It was voted on in parliament, and those responsible murdered innocent civilians in the name of Freedom and Democracy. It has caused destruction in the region continuing to this day. However people like you seem to think that just because something is a Democratic decision it's fine. Therefore you wont call Iraq Democratic State Terrorism which is exactly what it was and you wont call Trump a hate preacher. It seems to be one rule for the West and another rule for the rest of the world especially Muslims.
  13. I still do not understand how saying Israel should be moved to America is anti Jewish. The comment seems to be highlighting the hypocrisy of American foreign policy in the Middle East. A lot of people forget that the Palestinians are also semites, and therefore the oppression and racism perpetrated against them by Israel makes Israel the most anti semitic of all. These days it seems fine for the mainstream media and politicians to criticize Muslims any chance they get but any mention of Israel by someone in public office and they are forced to apologise for racism. Even though Israel is not a race or even a religion. Its a nation which came into existence at the expense of the local inhabitants which it has been killing and oppressing ever since. Here's a bit of food for thought. Imagine if Donald Trump had said ban all Jews instead of ban all Muslims. Would he still be running for the presidency, I think not!
  14. There is no denial of responsibility. Muslims in general are not responsible for the actions of individuals who share the same faith. For you to claim otherwise is fascist. It seems to me like you are threatening Western Muslims? What do you mean by act now? What do you want Muslim citizens of the west to do? Denial of responsibility and blaming Islam will not help. Western Politicians have played a big part in the destruction of the Middle East and the formation of groups like ISIS. Western politicians killed and displaced millions of Muslims in Iraq for no reason. Name me a single Muslim politician, nation or terrorist group which has done anything close to that in the Western world? Unprovoked bombing and invasion of a sovereign country based on lies is terrorism not war. The politicians did it in the name of freedom and democracy. Should all who believe in freedom and democracy be blamed?
  15. The gap between cities and towns in the south and the rest of the UK has widened over the past 10 years, according to a Centre for Cities analysis of Britain’s 64 largest cities and towns which draws on a decade of official data, despite stated efforts by the last two governments to bridge the north-south divide and rebalance the economy. The Cities Outlook report finds cities in the south are out-performing those in the rest of the country in terms of population growth and in the number of jobs and businesses created. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2015/jan/19/uk-cities-ranked-jobs-migration-house-prices-broadband-speeds-data Britain's fastest growing cities are all in the south – and its shrinking ones all in the north http://www.citymetric.com/business/britains-fastest-growing-cities-are-all-south-and-its-shrinking-ones-all-north-1323 I also came cross this http://www.cityam.com/207396/six-cities-grew-faster-london-last-decade 5 out of the 6 which grew faster than London were London satellite cities, and the the one which wasn't, was Aberdeen. Many people hold the view that the political classes have abandoned Northern England but the amount of money pumped into regeneration projects in the north, refutes this. My theory for the lack of northern growth is that companies prefer to be based in and around London. Also people who can afford to will generally choose to live in the South. Are there any solutions to this problem or do you think the North South divide will continue for years to come?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.