BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 03:24 AM

By the way Shaw, on the ability, or inability to answer straight questions, how come you never answered the one from bobad related to this supposed leverage Jews exert that enables them to control the government of the most powerful nation on the planet?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM

Well Shaw in your parlance it could have been 72 sardines.

But seriously though folks, what is stereotypical about the claim? It is stated in Hadith number 2,516 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmihdi which reads:

"The least [reward] for the people of heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

So tell me Shaw as an expert on Islamism which of the Hadith are to be believed and which discounted?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:16 PM

Muslim stereotype?

Again, it is obvious that you are ignorant about the difference between Islam and Islamism. I suggest you try to learn that because you're looking like a fool. Masood was a radicalized jihadi - look up what that means too while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:09 PM

As for McGrath trying to twist what is a perfectly clear statement stating that he was radicalized, here's another quote from Joshi that he can have a go at:

"Masood is not atypical in being a British-born convert with a criminal record. He was slightly more unusual in being older, but we do not know how long ago "Masood is not atypical in being a British-born convert with a criminal record. He was slightly more unusual in being older, but we do not know how long ago he was radicalized," Joshi told Reuters.

"If it was in prison, this would be a common pathway. Given the diversity of Islamist extremists, Masood doesn't look too unusual.



Note: he was radicalized Clear enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:05 PM

You haven't "shown" anything, I've neither deflected nor wriggled, I'm really focused here, and I ask you again. What did you mean by your 72 virgins reference with regard to the Westminster killer? Do you know that that was in his head? That's what you said. So explain yourself. How did you know that's what he was thinking? Or were you indulging in the well-known "72 virgins" Muslim stereotype? We know how you hate stereotypes, you know, about Jews conspiring to run the world, etc. You even have a go at us when that isn't what we think at all. But here you are, indulging in a stereotype regarding the people you clearly hate so much, Muslims. What have you got to say about that? Or are you going to tell us now that you suddenly love Muslims after all? Do you think that every Muslim man thinks he's going to get 72 virgins when he arrives in paradise?   Do you think that the Westminster killer thought that? If so, how do you know? Can you read this or is it too long for you? Can you answer straight questions? There's always a first time, and we're here waiting to forgive you... 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:24 PM

Deflect, deflect, deflect Shaw. I showed you to be wrong again so you're trying to deflect like you always do. Have you learned the difference between Islam and Islamism yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:22 PM

As such, there are so many things that we will never know. But isn't it amazing how these clever people here seem to know exactly what was in his mind. The expectation that he was about to have fun with 72 virgins, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:14 PM

5. Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the security thinktank the Royal United Services Institute, said: "We have always known that it is exceptionally hard to understand who will become a terrorist. Masood is unusual in that only a minority become radicalised over the age of 30. His criminal record is unsurprising, as some studies show that a significant proportion of jihadists have had prior convictions."

Actually that isn't confirmation that Joshi is sure that Masood had been "radicalised". He is saying it would be an unusual example of the process, given the age at which it is hypothised to have happened.

It would clearly have been much easier to have sorted out this if the NHS workers had succeeded in preventing his death. And it would clearly be useful for the security agency to have that kind of information. For future planning.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:00 PM

Well, Teribus, you know me. I don't speak for anyone else. I note that you hold back from supporting bobad's stereotyping of Islam. Good for you. Bobad, how do you know that the killer believed that he would have access to 72 virgins? You've been asked this question several times after you mentioned it in what seemed to be a rather triumphalist manner. You are the first person here to pounce on what you see as anti-Jewish stereotyping. Well I'm pouncing on your blatant use of the stereotyping of Muslims. Stop flapping around and bloody well explain yourself. You're in here with the big boys now, pal. We're not as stupid as you seem to think. So what did you mean exactly by your 72 virgins remark? Do you or do you not know that that is what the killer believed? What's the matter here? Cat got your tongue?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 06:28 PM

" if he was a jihadist, it wasn's justice, it was a reward for him, a merciful end" - MGOH

The first instance of stereotyping Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 05:27 PM

Ask a grown up about it.

then, poobad?

That wouldn't be you then, would it big boy.....lol


You really should stick to posting your inanities, Shaw doesn't need your help, he's doing a crack up job at making a fool of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:55 PM

Sorry but I don't see that question - maybe you need your eyes checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:53 PM

So, did he believe that 72 virgins were waiting for him then, poobad? I believe that was the question.

I didn't ask. Someone else did earler. You don't really have the hang of this discussion thing do you? Ask a grown up about it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:36 PM

Why do you ask me that by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:34 PM

Haven't you some fish to fry Gnomeskull?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:32 PM

So, did he believe that 72 virgins were waiting for him then, poobad? I believe that was the question.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:25 PM

Haven't you some fish to fry Gnomeskull?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:24 PM

So, did he believe that 72 virgins were waiting for him then, poobad? I believe that was the question.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:22 PM

Haven't you some fish to fry Gnomeskull?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:18 PM

Yiu are, after all, indulging in Islamic stereotyping

Still haven't figured out the difference between Islam and Islamism I see. Keep studying and it may come to you one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:17 PM

So, did he believe that 72 virgins were waiting for him then, poobad? I believe that was the question.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:59 PM

Twisting again eh Shaw.

Here are the relevant facts for your consideration:

1. the Met clearly stated that he had been radicalized.

2. Scotland Yard linked him to jihad.

3. His mother said his beliefs led him to committing this atrocity.

4. Neil Basu, senior national coordinator for UK counter-terrorism policing said: "Whilst I have found no evidence of an association with Islamic State or al-Qaida, there is clearly an interest in jihad."

5. Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the security thinktank the Royal United Services Institute, said: "We have always known that it is exceptionally hard to understand who will become a terrorist. Masood is unusual in that only a minority become radicalised over the age of 30. His criminal record is unsurprising, as some studies show that a significant proportion of jihadists have had prior convictions."


These are the people who have linked him to radicalization and jihadism. According to you they must all be Islamophobes. You are a bigot and a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:27 PM

You are surmising that the killer believed in the seventy-two virgins. How do you know that? Is that in writing somewhere, or do you believe that every Muslim believes that? It's just an Islamic stereotype. And in what way have I been an apologist for him? Show me a post in which I've defended his actions. That's what apologists do, and I haven't done it, not once. And how do you conclude that he was a true jihadist and not just a madman or someone who was mentally ill? You accuse me of knowing everything. It seems that you know so much about him that you are able to rush to these certainties. More than the Metropolitian Police, more than the intelligence people. Perhaps you were his flatmate once or something. Answer the questions I've asked in this post and show us that you're not just just a rather nasty, vindictive, bitter, twisted and bigoted man. Yiu are, after all, indulging in Islamic stereotyping. Guess what would happen if I stooped that low and indulged in Jewish stereotypes. You're a bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:47 AM

Shaw, once again claiming to know better than Scotland Yard, the Met and the terrorist's own mother. Here's another expert who obviously doesn't know as much as Shaw:

Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the security thinktank the Royal United Services Institute, said: "We have always known that it is exceptionally hard to understand who will become a terrorist. Masood is unusual in that only a minority become radicalised over the age of 30. His criminal record is unsurprising, as some studies show that a significant proportion of jihadists have had prior convictions."

Being an apologist for a jihadi terrorist what does that make you?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:30 AM

Little i's I love you...

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:29 AM

Interesting that you should Indulge in a stereotype of Islam without having a clue as to whether that's what the killer believed. That makes you...what?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:02 AM

Well bobad believe it or not there once was a time in my life when I believed in Father Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 06:07 AM

he now gets to share the experience of his innocent victims.

Not to mention the pleasure of 72 virgins in paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 05:02 AM

"Khalid Masood is better off dead and gone" - well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 02:18 AM

1: "The fact that this man was killed was not a case of "summary justice".

I have never said it was "summary justice", nor have I ever supported "Summary Justice".

2: "If the NHS had succeeded in their efforts to prevent him dying, that would have been a better outcome."

This is where we will just have to agree to disagree - looking at it from all perspectives Khalid Masood is better off dead and gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:21 PM

It is of course possible for it to be determined in advance that a person is insane and not fit to stand trial, Teribus, but it is also quite possible in a trial for the grounds of a successful defence to be that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity.

The fact that this man was killed was not a case of "summary justice". He wasn't being punished for his actions, he was being prevented from causing further harm. If the NHS had succeeded in their efforts to prevent him dying, that would have been a better outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:38 PM

Well let's see Kevin:

1: So the NHS workers who tried to keep him alive were wasting NHS resources?

The Paramedics responding to the incident were doing their job. In the case of Khalid Masood it was a wasted effort - he died at the scene of the incident.

2: IF - "he wasn't responsible for his actions by reason of insanity." - there would have been NO TRIAL Kevin, I would have thought that as an experienced journalist you would have known that.

3: "As for the possibility that if he had lived, and had turned out to be involved in a jihadist cell, other lives might have been saved in the future, not worth considering that."

Lots of "ifs" and "mights" there Kevin. Fortunately at the time the armed policemen at the scene were more interested in protecting the public and themselves from someone obviously intent on doing harm. Perhaps the Security Guards and Police down in Tunisia read the McGrath of Harlow procedure on the advantages of keeping a terrorist gunman alive - how many lives did he take again Kevin?

4: Save the cash, and avoid any possibility of anything that he might have experienced as a punishment.

More interested in protecting the public Kevin than in worrying what Masood might have experienced - he now gets to share the experience of his innocent victims.

By the way Gnome is it possible for someone who is not English to be a "Little Englander"?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 07:00 PM

Little Englanders usually fail to see the big picture, Kevin. Sadly.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 04:25 PM

So the NHS workers who tried to keep him alive were wasting NHS resources? And risking further expenses from a trial and either imprisonment, or detention and treatment if it was determined he wasn't responsible for his actions by reason of insanity.

As for the possibility that if he had lived, and had turned out to be involved in a jihadist cell, other lives might have been saved in the future, not worth considering that.

Save the cash, and avoid any possibility of anything that he might have experienced as a punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 04:22 PM

"It was appropriate to shoot to kill in this case, as far as I can see."

Exactly - nothing "unfortunate about it" and how Masood viewed things is irrelevant and immaterial - which was precisely my point to MGOH. Thanks Pollack.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:57 PM

I absolutely agree with you Steve!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:35 PM

Justice comes way before saving taxpayer money

If you need to explain that, Steve, there's really no fookin' point, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:48 PM

It's a point not worth making. Justice comes way before saving taxpayer money by avoiding court cases via short-cuts. It was appropriate to shoot to kill in this case, as far as I can see. I suppose he could been incapacitated instead, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in the position to make that judgement and I'm not making it in hindsight. Generally, justice is served better by holding perpetrators to account via judicial process. Money doesn't come into it. Yes he might conceivably killed more people had he not been taken out. The fact that he wasn't given the opportunity did indeed save the NHS money, but that is a completely cockeyed way of looking at it. He was stopped from ruining even more people's lives. That's all there is to it, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:32 PM

"But the principle of sparing the public the expense of judicial process that you seem to have adopted"

But Shaw, you steamimg great pollack, I have adopted no such principle, I have only stated what appears to be a cost saving in THIS PARTICULAR case because he was killed during the execution of his deliberate, planned and rehearsed attack (In which five people were killed by Khalid Masood) - on that subject I've just thought of another one - because Khalid Masood was killed in order to save human life the taxpayer is further saved the cost of his and his additional victims hospital and medical treatment - takes pressure off the NHS, I'd have thought that you'd be all for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:30 AM

The lynch-mob mentality is the one that harbours the notion that it's better to spare the public the "expense" of his trial and imprisonment. In this case I'm not in any way suggesting that the actions taken by the police were wrong. The exigencies of the situation demanded them as far as I can see. But the principle of sparing the public the expense of judicial process that you seem to have adopted is indeed one key tenet of the lynch mob mentality. That is not how we do things in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:58 AM

What "Lynch Mob" mentality? We are discussing a very specific case - perhaps you should stick to Haddock recipes.

"In the particular circumstances, it may have been entirely appropriate to kill him and I won't argue with that."

Great news Shaw that is exactly what I have said.

"But that is not a template for the way we should always deal with bad people."

Who has said that?

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM

But suppose he was mentally ill? Your lynch-mob attitude is entirely at odds with the concept of justice we have in this country. In the particular circumstances, it may have been entirely appropriate to kill him and I won't argue with that. But that is not a template for the way we should always deal with bad people.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 02:21 AM

"Killing him was an unfortunate outcome of trying to stop him killing (o)ther people"

I fail to see what was "unfortunate" about it? As far as the rest of the population goes it by far more preferable that Khalid Masood was killed and that he can no longer pose a threat to any innocent member of the public, there is also the added bonus that the taxpayer does not have to bear the costs of his trial and incarceration had he survived.

As to how he would view it? I couldn't give a toss, he has been removed from the equation and will never hurt of kill anyone ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:57 PM

It's an interesting article in the Guardian making an attempt to examine the lone wolf concept. It deserves to be treated with more respect than just to be used as a source of quotes to bolster a particular point of view.

There is tremendous amount of oversimplification in most stuff I've seen about these kind of issues in the media. As if there was always an either or - a perpetrator is part of a terrorist cell, or he's a completely solitary actor, he's motivated by a religious or political ideology, or he's mentally screwed up. But more often than not it's not either or, it's both and. The fact that someone's part of a cell doesn't necessarily mean they aren't mentally disturbed. The fact that someone is acting on their own doesn't mean they might not be ideologically motivated. And it doesn't in any way rule out being mentally disturbed.
..........
Talk about "summary justice" is particularly irrelevant in cases where there are reasons to suspect jihadist motives. Killing him was an unfortunate outcome of trying to stop him killing ther people, it was the last thing that was desired, and in fact every effort was made to keep him alive after he had been shot. Once he was dead it was impossible to find out what was going on - if he had any accoplices he took their names to the grave. As for justice - if he was a jihadist, it wasn's justice, it was a reward for him, a merciful end.. A trial and a life in prison would have been far more of a punishment, And I don't think he deserved a merciful reward.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 02:54 PM

It's an old ploy by the media but still seems to fool some.

White mass murderer = Lone wolf
Brown mass murderer = Terrorist
White nutter = disturbed
Brown nutter = Jihadist
Western government interference = Liberation
Eastern government interference = Repression

To paraphrase the folk song, when will we ever learn?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: mayomick
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:25 AM

Nobody seems to mind so long as the terrorists carry out their atrocities in Syria. Then they are heroes - even deserving of the Victoria Cross according to an article by the left-winger George Monbiot I saw featured in the Guardian in 2014 .

It's not just the left though. Many right-wing law and order types will turn themselves into limp-wrist humanitarians and Amnesty supporters to describe Syria's harsh response to such "inhuman shits" as "barbaric" and "dictatorial" in much the same way as Jim uses in support of the Syrian jihadis   The fact that these jihadists might resort to "chemical or even worse, biological terrorism" in Syria is not even considered remotely possible : only the Syrian government would cross the red line to use such weapons .

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:00 AM

Extreme left - extreme right = two sides of the same coin.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 10:54 AM

It's very important, actually. Right-wing anti-foreigner rhetoric in the referendum campaign led to a sharp increase in hate crime against EU citizens in the UK. The man who killed Jo Cox was influenced by far-right groups, as was Andres Breivik. Plenty more, even in your article. And, if Le Pen gains ascendancy in France, watch this space. It matters a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:02 AM

"Right-wing", "Left-wing": who cares? To be a slave to perceived political labels is to miss the point entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Andrew Neil slams jihadist!!!!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:48 AM

From that link:

What research does show is that we may be more likely to find lone wolves among far-right extremists than among their jihadi counterparts.

("What research does show" is weasel words, but hey).

Just thought I'd mention it in case the length of the piece defeats anyone. He goes on to discuss Jo Cox's killer and some other far-right examples. If the word terrorism immediately evokes "Islam" in your mind, you need to examine your conscience.

The fact remains that we can't identify what the Westminster killer's motive was, or know whether he was mentally deranged at the time. Broad-brush analysis of the kind the article deals in is perfectly legitimate; individual cases have their own unique features.