BS: Unarmed soldier killed, (London-May 2013)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 03:05 PM

""They claim the right to freedom of speech under UK law and then go on to spit in the face of both.""

As did the Teds in the fifties, the skinheads and National Front in the sixties, the Bnp an latterly the EDL.

Please don't try to claim that Muslim protesters are in any way different.

Have you been living on some planet where all whites treat police with respect, and only Muslims use the epithets "Pigs" and "Filth"?

Just go on treating them as enemies and inferiors. That'll certainly help to make them love us.....NOT!

People like you create terrorists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 02:55 PM

""Islamophobe? No

Islamististophobe ~~ Of course. They'll get you, along with the rest of us, just as that fat beardie said, given the ½-a-chance you are determined to afford them.""

Do you know the difference Mike?

The following would suggest not!

""Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine""

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 02:39 PM

""No, Don; sorry, but that's feeble and desperate. What is implicit in the use of the word 'might' here [along with all that pathetic "not going into the numbers game" shtick] is that they are the words of a spokesman scared too shitless of the PC-Brigade and the anti-racist industry to come out with the true figures he had, right there on the paper before him.""

In your opinion Mike!

Any proof of what you say?

Any evidence then, other than a bald assertion from you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM

Alf Garnett with a Uni education methinks - takes all kinds to make a pogrom, I suppose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:17 AM

What 'mask'? Have never concealed any of my opinions on this topic, or my contempt for yours.

See ~~ up comes your head. "racist shits" you squeal.

Just as I predicted.

Islamophobe? No

Islamististophobe ~~ Of course. They'll get you, along with the rest of us, just as that fat beardie said, given the ½-a-chance you are determined to afford them.

Self-righteous-Carrolophobe ~~ Bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 10:37 AM

"Catch you going to live in Luton or Bradford to demonstrate how much you love all those "
Spent thirty years years in West London where the main thusgs were the 'Paki bashers who lurked around the local park - Pakistanis a few doors away and dozens of families were regular customers
You really do read like a hate rag now = 'twas only a matter of time before you dropped the mask - now where did I put my copy of 'Lord of the Flies'?
Self-declared racist shits - all three of you - reduced to typos and all!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM

But we're not supposed to mention that, are we? It's "phobic".

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM

Bit more info, maybe, Jim? Just what motivated the "thug"'s murderous hate? Financial envy? Didn't like young Fusilier Rigby's smart uniform? Or what?

Must have been something really worthwhile, one feels, to go for to hack him into gobbets like that ...

What was it now? What can it have been to arouse such violent destructive hate?

Oh ~~ of course: he wouldn't share his magnificent Faith. Well that certainly explains it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:48 AM

"perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? "
Because a hate filled thug killed him
,..,.,
Very helpful, Jim. Most specific. A Seventh-Day Adventist hate-filled thug from Morningside, was it?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM

Bigotted or what?
Jim Carroll
.,,.,
Oh yes, bigoted note correct spelling, please; & I know I am supposed to be ashamed of being 'educated', thank you indeed ~~ against traitorous, biased, own-kind-hating scum like you, Carroll. I could say, why don't you just sod off and live somewhere else if you hate your own countrymen so much ~~ except that is exactly what you have done, isn't it? Catch you going to live in Luton or Bradford to demonstrate how much you love all those you call me 'phobic' about. Reckon they would welcome you into their inner councils as to how they are going to contrive the world caliphate?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:22 AM

"One nutter" apologia alert.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:16 AM

Anjam choudray on the subject of benefits and taking from the Kaffir.
Only 38 seconds, so worth a click.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6lkgLaIZtY

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:14 AM

"perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? "
Because a hate filled thug killed him - that's what hatew does to people - take a look at your own ranting.
'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? A bloody great parade of murderous thugs, of whom that fat slug was just the spokie. Weren't you watching Jim? Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...], we have got to change all our ways to accommodate their filthy fatuous ideas or they are going to kill a few more of our soldiers & blow up a few more of our buses. And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again."
Bigotted or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:02 AM

And is it not patent that a mob gathering for the purpose of repeatedly yelling "British police go to hell" are explicitly setting out to distance & alienate themselves from any 'British'ness on their own part; are in fact specifically denying being British or wishing to be thought so ~~

except, of course, for making full use of the facilities and utilities of the British town in which they have, by their own choice, taken up residence; and no doubt laying claim to any benefit to which they may be entitled by British law?

And Carroll & his lot reckon that's quite OK, I dare say...

Or is such a point merely another sign that I must have 'flipped'?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 07:24 AM

"I suggest he sticks to using dead soldiers and their widows" ···

& perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? Just suddenly keeled over with a previously unknown illness leaving the medical establishment gnashing their teeth in helpless bafflement, was it?

Christ, but you are contemptible...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM

See what I mean. I can see what's happening and he can't, so I suffer from "long-running Islamaphobia".

You make me 'flip' Carroll, you stinking evasive little equivocating traitor you. How dare you patronise me, you ignorant little nonentity! {Oh, yes; I still haven't forgotten that you denounced me once for being 'educated', meaning it as an insult, you pathetic little specimen.}

"British police go to hell", the charmers were yelling. Not 'a' of them: all of them. Are you bloody deaf or something, as well as blind to what's going on?

Oh, what's the use. Stink away in your shithole. You'll learn soon enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Same old guest
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:42 AM

Excuse me but I think you miss the point.
The behaviour of those demonstrators is way out of order.
They claim the right to freedom of speech under UK law and then go on to spit in the face of both.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:42 AM

you have virtually stopped linking on all these threads and have been asked over and over again to provide back-up.

Ok, specify something that needs a source.
You can't, because it is a false accusation.
Lies, smears, and nothing else.
Back to your fascist sites with you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:32 AM

Mike seems to have flipped - I suggest he sticks to using dead soldiers and their widows an platforms for his long running Islamophobia.
"You were just trying to associate me with white supremists"
No Keith - you were trying to associate me -
"Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site."
it's your arguments that are found on these shit sites - you have virtually stopped linking on all these threads and have been asked over and over again to provide back-up.
The whole bunch of you appear to have gone into 'Rally' mode - Go find a Beirkeller - the whole ******* lot of you jackbooters
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:59 AM

sorry the html went apeshit: but hope my point comes over nonetheless

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:57 AM

"a brave lady facing a murderous thug - what has it got to do with 'savage hordes of foreigners' on our doorstep?"
.,,.
"'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? A bloody great parade of murderous thugs, of whom that fat slug was just the spokie. Weren't you watching Jim? Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...], we have got to change all our ways to accommodate their filthy fatuous ideas or they are going to kill a few more of our soldiers & blow up a few more of our buses. And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again.

Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~
good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:21 AM

The third survey he listed was the one quoted by BBC that I also put up, saying I hoped BBC was not too white supremacist for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM

Bobad's list of links came from The White Supremist - I pointed that out at the time.

You did, but it was a lie.
As Bobad said, "So Carroll you were lying about the data coming from a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site". You were just trying to associate me with white supremists (sic) to try and smear me you lying piece of shit. I have never once in my life accessed a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site" but you seem to have some familiarity with them. Is that where you and your fellow travelers congregate to discuss the "Jewish problem"?"

What is their take on Global Zionism Jim?
Is it like coming home?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 03:58 AM

I attempt to trace your statements because you refuse to link them,
Same old lie Jim.
Would you care to give an example?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 03:42 AM

"Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site.
I never look at such sites. Nor should you."
What a stupidly ignorance-imposing statement - if I wand to find what you people are up to these are the sites to go to.
However, whenever I attempt to trace your statements because you refuse to link them, I come up with organsiations like 'Stormfront' 'The English Defence League' 'UKIP' and the 'British National Party' - which should tell everybody who they are dealing with here – thank you for the opportunity of pointing that fact out.
Bobad's list of links came from The White Supremist - I pointed that out at the time.
"This video was referenced by Bobad but nobody commented on it."
Why should we Susan - it was an early report which appeared in all the press here and was common knowledge - a brave lady facing a murderous thug - what has it got to do with 'savage hordes of foreigners' on our doorstep?
Have read through much of the MI5 site comments on terrorism - am reading through your link with interest - I suggest you do the same.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:42 AM

When they do not respond, it means they can't.
Bobad gave an explanation for why Jim trawls racist sites.
He did not respond.
(Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site.)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 09:03 PM

This video was referenced by Bobad but nobody commented on it.
Freedom of speech?
WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 04:47 PM

This should work - MI5 link - you cut off the end of the url.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 04:02 PM

The MI5 link does not work.
Unless anyone can help, just google the first paragraph from my extract.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:30 PM

"There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years."
Can you provide links to this - the only claim I can find is on the fascist "Stormfront" website?
yes I can, and I never look at such sites.
Nor should you.
They use hits as evidence of support.

Asked if MI5 was in the dock, Sir Malcolm (Rifkind, former defence sec.) told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No, I don't think they're in the dock. I think that would be very unfair.

"Do remember one fundamental point: the fact we have not had anyone killed until these tragic events in Woolwich since the 7/7 bombings in 2005 is not because there hasn't been terrorist plots.

"Every year since 2005 there has been at least one, sometimes two or even more, terrorist plots which were disrupted and prevented from killing British citizens, partly because of the work of MI5 - in some cases very largely because of the work of MI5 - and other intelligence agencies."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:13 PM

Here is evidence that the numbers have not gone down.
It is provided for us by MI5.

Our experience over the last ten years has shown that networks of terrorist supporters can be extraordinarily determined, resilient and patient. Some groups that have been disrupted or have had members convicted of terrorist or other offences have nonetheless been able to recover. They have resumed terrorist-related activities within a relatively short period of time and sometimes under new leadership.

Over 310 individuals have been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK between 11 September 2001 and 30 September 2012. A number of those who have been imprisoned and are due for release are still committed to extremism. They are likely to return to terrorist activities and will need to be monitored in coming years.

Experience has shown that it is very rarely the case that anyone who has been closely involved with terrorist-related activity can be safely taken off our list of potentially dangerous individuals.

Terrorists continue to aspire to attack high-profile targets in the UK and abroad. Major public events present new opportunities for terrorists. The UK's police and intelligence services continue to step up efforts to counter the ongoing threat from international terrorism.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/international-terrorism-and-the-uk/the-trajectory-of-t

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 02:58 PM

"Jim, it's a manner of speaking that the Tsar was replaced by Stalin."
Did you say you were a teacher - hope you don't teach history!
"The numbers could hardly go down since then!"
Don't be more stupid than you have been already - the significance of the killing under discussion is its rarity - you have claimed 2,000 suspects now - you can't substantiate it so you have retreated to "maybes". You claim that the number of suspects has increased   - you can't substantiate it and are now trying to skirt around it.
The 2,000 figure comes from the Metropolitan Police - not MI5 and it was conjured up as a "maybe" - as Don has just pointed out, over a year after the London bombings, when the nearest the police had come to arresting accomplices was to execute an innocent bystander in an Underground tube station, so the must have been fairly desperate to come up with some results - "observation" being one of the favourite euphemisms for "getting nowhere".
As has been requested here and elsewhere, stop inventing phony figures.
You have no evidence at all that the figures have increased, there have been no arrests or deportation of the 2'000 suspects so it seems that they were innocent of all crimes, or the figure was snatched out of the air just as yours have.
There is no increased 'suspect terrorist activity' from the Muslim community - they remain as well behaved as they always have been, despite you and your shitty mates trying to paint them as monsters and degenerates, in order to make their lives harder than they already are.
"There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years."
Can you provide links to this - the only claim I can find is on the fascist "Stormfront" website?
"I have produced a lot of facts." You have not - you have invented them and refused to substantiate your claims - the nearest one to reality was your 2,000 which you have just all but admitted was back in 2006 - "The numbers could hardly go down since then!"
"but could not be watched because there were still thousands on it"
NO WE HAVEN'T - PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE OR STOP LYING - we have been told the police lost interest in them - nobody has claimed "thousands" - you're going to end up with a nose longer than Tony Blair's!
You really should work out a use order for the brain - yo really are dipping out in the share.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM

"operative word here is might, since implicit in that is the phrase or might not"
.,,.
No, Don; sorry, but that's feeble and desperate. What is implicit in the use of the word 'might' here [along with all that pathetic "not going into the numbers game" shtick] is that they are the words of a spokesman scared too shitless of the PC-Brigade and the anti-racist industry to come out with the true figures he had, right there on the paper before him. This was 6 years ago, remember [as poor old Jim never tires of telling us because it's all he's got, poor old - ah - match-beginner-with-the-coin]; before the whole of that pusillanimous evasiveness was blown sky-high by decent investigative journalism, esp by The Times.

You know it's true.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

""Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said they were being looked at in the belief that they might be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism.
When asked roughly how many Muslims were being looked at, Mr Clarke said: "I don't want to go down the numbers game, I don't think it's helpful … all I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in, are into the thousands.""

It may have escaped your attention Keith, but he operative word here is might, since implicit in that is the phrase "or might not".

Why is it that you specifically have such a problem with this concept?

Could it be your hatred of Muslims which prevents you from seeing all the ramifications of the word might?

It certainly seems to be so!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM

The numbers could hardly go down since then!
There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years.
We have been told that the current two were on the watch list, but could not be watched because there were still thousands on it.

I have produced a lot of facts.
You have provided nothing to suggest the figure should be lower.
Are you going to?
You would like to but you can't, because it is bollocks, like everything you post on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:54 PM

"I fear that the tosser is the one who thinks his hysterical non-arguments somehow become more valid & convincing by being printed in"
No Mike - the tosser is the one who lurks in the shadows while his mates stick their necks out, only emerging occasionally to egg them on when they run out of steam.
"He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph, and I provided the link."
Nothing later than 2006 then - now there's a surprise!
Stick and stones and all that.
"You're boring to the max"
And you're the sad lady who thinks Stalin replaced the Tsar - go buy a history book!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:49 PM

Just toke yourself off, Pisco...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Toking Episcopalian
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:31 PM

Hey guys, wanna smoke one? Jerry Garcia says it makes you behave :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

If you come up with one Jim, please put it in the biggest and reddest capitals that HTML will allow.
I would hate to miss it, you silly arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM

It sure has you miserable bunch of gnarly trolls! You say the same damned things over and over and over again. You're boring to the max :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:47 AM

The quote was of Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch.
He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph, and I provided the link.

Scotland Yard would not allow such a lie to be published in the Telegraph.
So, what is your challenge Jim dear?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:46 AM

I fear that the tosser is the one who thinks his hysterical non-arguments somehow become more valid & convincing by being printed in

BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BLOCK CAPITALS

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:17 AM

Should read ,SEPTEMBER 12TH 2006
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM

"Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed."
SEPTEMBER 12TH "))
What has happened to the thousands who were being watched, SEVEN YEARS AGO - secretly banged up, deported or not guilty of any crime - come on Keith - you have a hot line into the security services, you must know?
THE LONGER YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS THE BIGGER MORON YOU BECOME - YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY BACKING TO YOUR CLAIM OF INCREASED NUMBERS, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SIGN OF TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY,. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE
"I have given sources and links for everything."
NO YOU HAVE NOT -
"This thread has run it's course."
You wish!!
What a trio of tossers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:48 AM

That's the way it plays out with the apologists - their claims are refuted with facts and figures and they resort to smearing and name calling because that's all they have left. This thread has run it's course.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:10 AM

I suggest that anybody left with any genuine interest in this subject
other than to use the body of a dead soldier as an Islamophobic soapbox, read through the reasoned, friendly and humanely sympathetic postings at the beginning of this thread, before Keith and his merry Klavern of Klansmen hijacked it

I suggest the same, to see what a disgusting lie that is, to add to all the other lies Jim tells in his desperation to smear someone he can not challenge in any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:21 AM

Lets get this straight - in 2006 the figures for terrorist threats were 2,000 - which includes all the 'suspects' I have given IRA, spies et al (according to MI5 head),

Actual quote.
Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed.
Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said they were being looked at in the belief that they might be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism.
When asked roughly how many Muslims were being looked at, Mr Clarke said: "I don't want to go down the numbers game, I don't think it's helpful … all I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in, are into the thousands."

Same link.
"The counter-terrorist effort now under way, with some 70 investigations against suspected Islamic extremists, is unprecedented and unmatched even at the height of the IRA's mainland campaign."

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION - HAVE YOU BUGGED THE CIA HEADQUARTERS?
You are a moron Keith, and the fact that you continue to invent "facts" to make your Islamophobic case makes you a lying moron bigot.

I have given sources and links for everything.
A pointless and desperate lie Jim, as it is still fresh in everyone's minds.
You just make a bigger and bigger ARSE of yourself.
(but don't stop on my account)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:34 AM

"you have produced nothing to support a significantly lower figure."
There are no figures to produce - MI5 do not give such information and nowhere is it shown that the figures have risen - that is your invention.
Lets get this straight - in 2006 the figures for terrorist threats were 2,000 - which includes all the 'suspects' I have given IRA, spies et al (according to MI5 head), left and right wing organisations - and those who are routinely listed as a risk, - mustn't forget Mrs Thatcher's "Enemies Within" the Trades Unions.
What happened to those 'suspects - were they arrested, were they found to be safe, do the security forces still have them under surveillance, are they roaming free despite the fact that they are a security risk?
But most relevant WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION - HAVE YOU BUGGED THE CIA HEADQUARTERS?
You are a moron Keith, and the fact that you continue to invent "facts" to make your Islamophobic case makes you a lying moron bigot.
Syria is a wonderful example of your moronic attitude - you open a hand-wringing thread about what was happening in Homs, when thousands of citizens were being cut down by sniper fire you explain how it was OK to sell Assad "only sniper bullets", you suggest it would be acceptable to sell him riot control equipment, you oppose suggestions that Britain arm the opposition and ignore the Chinese/Russian veto, and you appear surprised that the Syrian people have turned to the only people who are prepared to help - the Extremists.   
You are an inarticulate clown who is unable to maintain a coherent argument and make two statements relate to one another.
If you have any idea whatever what how many suspects there are, produce your sources or go away and take your nodding dog with you - he is becoming as pathetic as you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:55 AM

Peter, I know well how Syria started and have been discussing it here from when it was peaceful protests against the regime.
Do you glibly deny that it is now a religious sectarian war with inhuman atrocities committed daily by both sides?

Jim, I first mentioned a figure of 2000 and said where I had heard it.
When you challenged it I provided ample evidence that the figure was reasonable, and you have produced nothing to support a significantly lower figure.
You have made a fool of yourself over a trivial factoid.
Likewise the 7%.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:49 AM

You mean the funny looking fish with the whiskers? That's funny because there's two cats in the Mudcat video. I just assumed...

What is This Place? 

But sure I know about mudcats- mainly polywogs- but sure :-))) Ain't no such thing anyway. Get over yourselves. Not you.

First hit in Britain. Made in France.

I Love My Dog