Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eight injured in "terrorist" stabbing attack Sweden
Options
Comments
-
It’s an effect across the board... there isn’t too much thinking required to ‘get’ that... the more we spend keeping ourselves safe from threats..the less we have to spend on other much needed services...in OUR community...Garda traffic officers sent to other units ? More accidents as there is less deterrent.
Sweden will probably now they’ve been attacked need xxxx more police, upgraded intelligence.... who pays, and who looses out ?
So your statement that they are paying more tax in those cities was incorrect? Thanks for clarifying.
Given that you consider 0.2% of our budget to be the reason for issues with our health service, I think I'll take my economic insights from elsewhere though.0 -
It’s an effect across the board... there isn’t too much thinking required to ‘get’ that... the more we spend keeping ourselves safe from threats..the less we have to spend on other much needed services...in OUR community...Garda traffic officers sent to other units ? More accidents as there is less deterrent.
Sweden will probably now they’ve been attacked need xxxx more police, upgraded intelligence.... who pays, and who looses out ?
Sweden has a problem with over tolerance (you can order child porngraphy from the govt, it's legal to masturbate in public etc), but non-Europeans non-white people? No tolerance there.
The Swedish are surprisingly racist, but only if your skin is a different colour. An Irish person living there would be fine, a Nigerian or Syrian person not so much.
They tout tolerance, but they create what are essentially non-white non-Europaean tenements in cities, leading to bitterness and disillusionment among the non-European races.
I've lived in Sweden, it's really not the utopia it's made out to be.0 -
So your statement that they are paying more tax in those cities was incorrect? Thanks for clarifying.
Given that you consider 0.2% of our budget to be the reason for issues with our health service, I think I'll take my economic insights from elsewhere though.
Direct provision costs peanuts compared to when they get leave to stay- full welfare, family reunification and accommodation. 2k a month now to rent a 3 bed semi in balbriggan on daft. God only knows how many the state are paying the rent on for previous dp residents in balbriggan alone.0 -
The One Doctor wrote: »Sweden has a problem with over tolerance (you can order child porngraphy from the govt, it's legal to masturbate in public etc), but non-Europeans non-white people? No tolerance there.
The Swedish are surprisingly racist, but only if your skin is a different colour. An Irish person living there would be fine, a Nigerian or Syrian person not so much.
They tout tolerance, but they create what are essentially non-white non-Europaean tenements in cities, leading to bitterness and disillusionment among the non-European races.
I've lived in Sweden, it's really not the utopia it's made out to be.
The government hardly ‘force’ people of certain ethnicities to live in tenements. If you can only afford a tenement I guess you need to live there... or should they like here, start gifting houses and apartments to new arrivals, just because...
Do people of varying ethnicities expect to arrive and be educated, get housed, get jobs, get financed and be in receipt of cash gifts all ahead of tax paying Swedes ? Then if the new arrivals dislike this, they have carte blanche to attack people?0 -
God, I remember when I was growing up that Sweden was pretty much regarded as a low crime utopia.
No idea what happened.
Oh no wait, they opened the gates to believers in a religion which is anathema to western values and which is more right wing than the S.S and that hate our very existence. That's the one.
Ah now we can't be judging or racial profiling. Sometimes nowadays a spade isn't a spade...0 -
Advertisement
-
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" according to the Oxford English dictionary....pretty sure my usage is just fine.
The majority of people in Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are going about their lives and not spending every waking moment checking under their beds for suicide bombers. I'll leave that to you.
The neologism is the clue- Islam. Not Muslims.
Dictionary of Sociology by Oxford University Press says "the exact meaning of Islamophobia continues to be debated amongst academics and policymakers alike. The term has proven problematic and is viewed by some as an obstacle to constructive criticism of Islam"
According to those more erudite, and with more experience of Islam, than you or I, Rushdie said 'Islamophobia' "took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head".
Hirsi Ali said Islamophobia was a "manufactured" term whose usage emboldens radical Muslims to push for censorship...we can't stop the injustices if we say everything is 'Islamophobic' and hide behind a politically correct screen, and "a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism".
According to Douglas Murray "its a nonsense term... a phobia is something of which one is irrationally afraid. Yet it is supremely rational to be scared of elements of Islam and of its fundamentalist strains in particular.
So that's the option - going about your business or spending every moment (!) checking under your bed (for cows?)...
Most people in these cities, are not simply just going about their business with little regard for the changed world they find themselves in as a result of recent attacks. If you think life hasn't changed or there isn't an increase awareness and perception of the threat you're delusional.
All perfectly rational.
Not a phobia.0 -
So your statement that they are paying more tax in those cities was incorrect? Thanks for clarifying.
Literally the first Google results
https://www.tax-news.com/news/Germany_Raises_More_Tax_To_Pay_For_CounterTerrorist_Measures____5465.html
Theres lots of links available about the fiscal aspects of fighting terrorism, but there's a whiff of "money fairies" about them, they usually don't specify the funding mechanism (but sure the grown ups know public expenditure has to come from somewhere
That one does though.
Explicitly.
Fags and insurance.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Literally the first Google results
https://www.tax-news.com/news/Germany_Raises_More_Tax_To_Pay_For_CounterTerrorist_Measures____5465.html
Theres lots of links available about the fiscal aspects of fighting terrorism, but there's a whiff of "money fairies" about them, they usually don't specify the funding mechanism (but sure the grown ups know public expenditure has to come from somewhere
That one does though.
Explicitly.
Fags and insurance.
It was stated that there were tax hikes in Madrid, Paris, Manchester and London, so a German tax increase is irrelevant. I asked for an example of increased taxes in the countries the poster actually stated there had been tax increases.
If I was to ask you about the weather in Dublin, would you send me the weather forecast for Dubai?0 -
It was stated that there were tax hikes in Madrid, Paris, Manchester and London, so a German tax increase is irrelevant. I asked for an example of increased taxes in the countries the poster actually stated there had been tax increases.
If I was to ask you about the weather in Dublin, would you send me the weather forecast for Dubai?
Well, seeing as you brought all terrorism into a jihad terror attack thread, I thought it was in spirit, to use an easy example from a Western Europe city.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/12/france-raises-terror-tax-to-increase-funds-for-victims-of-attacks/
French people paying more taxes to offset the costs of the jihadis.
But it's the money fairies really that get the money from the magic money free, to pay for the extra security/counter terror measures.0 -
Are you talking about the Norwegian politican who was raped by a Somali asylum seeker or is that a different case?You're joking, but Sweden has seen similar. There was a case of a Swedish man who got raped by a migrant, who felt sorry for the migrant after, and didn't want him to be deported. There was also a case in Germany where a girl was gang raped by migrants. She blamed natives at first. Eventually, she admitted the truth. After that she wrote a letter to the men who raped her apologizing for what had happened. The western "progressive" mindset is truly a sick one, and I take no satisfaction saying that.
Do you have a link for the girl in Germany?0 -
Advertisement
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Well, seeing as you brought all terrorism into a jihad terror attack thread, I thought it was in spirit, to use an easy example from a Western Europe city.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/12/france-raises-terror-tax-to-increase-funds-for-victims-of-attacks/
French people paying more taxes to offset the costs of the jihadis.
But it's the money fairies really that get the money from the magic money free, to pay for the extra security/counter terror measures.
I'm happy to talk about all terrorism, I was responding to to SPECIFIC claim that the people of Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London were paying more tax to combat terrorism.
I'm glad that you've clarified that the French pay an extra €1.60 to deal with it, according to the certainly entirely agenda free AmericanMilitaryNews.com.
I stated that the majority of people in Paris, Madrid, London and Manchester were going about their lives, I was countered with a post stating that the difference was they were paying increased taxes.....I'm not sure that €1.60 in tax is quite enough to prevent the vast majority of people from going about their lives.
I'd also highlight that according to your link, the tax is an increase in insurance so the victims of terror attacks can receive better support, not an increase in tax to pay for extra security or counter terror measures as per your assertion.0 -
OneEightSeven wrote: »Are you talking about the Norwegian politican who was raped by a Somali asylum seeker or is that a different case?
Do you have a link for the girl in Germany?
Yes, that sounds like it. I thought it was Sweden, but can't find a link, so it's likely the case you linked.
I think this might be the German case, not 100%. I remember reading about the rape at the time, but I didn't hear about the apology letter bit until I had read about it in The Strange Death of Europe. Google certainly isn't a friend with these searches, as I was getting no relevant results from my first few searches.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
I'm happy to talk about all terrorism, I was responding to to SPECIFIC claim that the people of Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London were paying more tax to combat terrorism.
I'm glad that you've clarified that the French pay an extra €1.60 to deal with it, according to the certainly entirely agenda free AmericanMilitaryNews.com.
I stated that the majority of people in Paris, Madrid, London and Manchester were going about their lives, I was countered with a post stating that the difference was they were paying increased taxes.....I'm not sure that €1.60 in tax is quite enough to prevent the vast majority of people from going about their lives.
I'd also highlight that according to your link, the tax is an increase in insurance so the victims of terror attacks can receive better support, not an increase in tax to pay for extra security or counter terror measures as per your assertion.
Youre right. Now I feel bad.
Of course its the money fairies that pay for all the increased security.
They just pluck it from the money trees.
How could I have not seen this.
(Not my assertion BTW!)0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Youre right. Now I feel bad.
Of course its the money fairies that pay for all the increased security.
They just pluck it from the money trees.
How could I have not seen this.
(Not my assertion BTW!)
I'm not even stating that there wasn't an increase in taxes, I just asked for specifics to back up the poster's claim that it was a contributing factor to preventing the people of Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London from going about their normal lives.
Much like presenting the Direct Provision cost over 20 years and implying it is a huge cost (when it reality it is less than 0.2% of our budget) and implying that this expenditure is the reason that poster could not receive rehabilitative treatment through the HSE, my own suspicion here is that the increased security budget to combat terrorism since the attacks in those cities is so small to be practically imperceptible in the context of a country's economy. Given that the only increases presented so far are a €1.60 contribution to a victims fund in France and a German expenditure of $1.4B in 2001 (I can't tell from your source if this was a one off expenditure or a continuing expense. Obviously in the context of the German economy, should it be a one off expenditure, it would be entirely insignificant) when they have a $400B budget (figures quoted in dollars as your source was provided in dollars), I'm comfortable in continuing to assert that the majority of people in Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London are not being prevented from going about their normal lives by increased taxes as was stated by the earlier poster.0 -
Even on a Sunday morning Fionn? Your are great man for derailing a thread in fairness.0
-
Even on a Sunday morning Fionn? Your are great man for derailing a thread in fairness.
I'm just responding to what I'm asked and what's been stated, Emo. Sure what else would I be doing of a Sunday morning before the days sport starts?!
Always find it amusing when someone criticises someone for posting on a discussion board.....by posting on a discussion board.....especially when said critic has posted four times more. Almost as if you don't have a response to the actual points raised and are resorting to weak ad hominems instead. Most ironically of all, further derailing the thread while complaining about me derailing the thread.
As I've said to another poster, if you think my posts on the topics of terrorism, and the specifics of the increased taxation caused by Islamic terrorism are off topic in a thread about an Islamic terrorist attack, feel free to use the report post function, and if a moderator feels that way too, I will of course cease posting.
Alternatively if posters would prefer a thread that is a circle jerk of unchallenged, poorly contexted or unsubstantiated claims so long as they're taking a dig at Muslims and/or immigrants and/or Asylum Seekers, I'd suggest the thread title be changed.0 -
Nah, you're just falling back on the old chestnut that if brown people are doing something bad that it must somehow be the Wests fault
That John Pliger routine ran out of road long ago.
I think that's a bit unfair. Western influence in the Middle East has been a disaster. It doesn't excuse these attacks, and it isn't the sole reason (Islam has a larger role to play in my opinion, too much immigration another), but it is one of a multitude of reasons we are were we are. Even when I say 'Western' I'm not being definitive enough. It has primarily been American and British influence in these regions.0 -
Yes, much like Daesh heavily skew the statistics now.
Ok, but the point is that Daesh's terrorist reach is near global, and primarily religious based . Every inhabited continent bar South America has been affected by them. Their (and a lot of Islamic terrorism) is carried out with the aim of having an Islamic caliphate that is Global. The demands of the IRA, and ETA, were more reasonable in comparison, importantly not based on some interpretation of a religious textbook, and actually attainable.
Even the Taliban (who is some respects are less extreme than ISIS) currently have a campaign of murdering prominent women in Afghani society due to their interpretation of the Koran.
Europe has not seen this type of terrorism that is near solely religiously based to the extent we do now, and it is that fact that is so alarming.As for root cause, I'd probably argue that (primarily US, supported by British more recently and Russian before this) destabilisation of the East led to the environment where much of this fomented (much like the actions of the British in NI led to the environment where the IRA could foment). To be very clear, I am not stating this removes responsibility from those who commit terrorist acts.
I don't necessarily disagree, but would you accept that Islam pays a prominent part aswell?I agree that in general society people who think Islamaphobia is a rational response are in the minority but my post was made in the context of a poster who specifically claimed that fear was a rational response and so it shouldn't be considered a phobia.
There is plenty to fear abut any religion, we are simply lucky that where we live now the religious don't have a prominent hold on society. Islam is particularly bad in this regard these days.0 -
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" according to the Oxford English dictionary....pretty sure my usage is just fine.
Calling the first part Islamophobia is patently ridiculous. I've a dislike of White-nationalists as a political force, does that make me racist towards white people? Or White-phobic?0 -
The One Doctor wrote: »Sweden has a problem with over tolerance (you can order child porngraphy from the govt.
Sorry what?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not even stating that there wasn't an increase in taxes, I just asked for specifics to back up the poster's claim that it was a contributing factor to preventing the people of Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London from going about their normal lives.
Much like presenting the Direct Provision cost over 20 years and implying it is a huge cost (when it reality it is less than 0.2% of our budget) and implying that this expenditure is the reason that poster could not receive rehabilitative treatment through the HSE, my own suspicion here is that the increased security budget to combat terrorism since the attacks in those cities is so small to be practically imperceptible in the context of a country's economy. Given that the only increases presented so far are a €1.60 contribution to a victims fund in France and a German expenditure of $1.4B in 2001 (I can't tell from your source if this was a one off expenditure or a continuing expense. Obviously in the context of the German economy, should it be a one off expenditure, it would be entirely insignificant) when they have a $400B budget (figures quoted in dollars as your source was provided in dollars), I'm comfortable in continuing to assert that the majority of people in Paris, Madrid, Manchester and London are not being prevented from going about their normal lives by increased taxes as was stated by the earlier poster.
No one said that.
Youre gas craic.
In a thread about jihadi attacks in Europe...
You claim fear of an Islamic attack is irrational - a phobia, things were worse in the 80s.
When given evidence of the rise in Jihadi attacks in Europe, you move the posts and say ah no, I'm talking about all terrorism in Europe.
When shown evidence probability of being killed in a terrorist attack in Europe is higher than the 80s, you move the goals again and say you're only talking about Western Europe.
Poster makes a claim people in Paris, Manchester and Nice are paying increased taxes to combat terrorism, you look for evidence.
When shown an actual tax on fags and insurance to combat terrorism in Berlin, we find suddenly the goals aren't for moving, and you're insisting on something for Paris, Nice or Manchester.
When shown a tax on insurance to help fund victims of terrorism in Paris, its no, it had to be to fight terrorism.
While there are plenty of reports on the cost of counter terrorism, and even if someone produced the municipal revenue and expenditure budget of all of Paris, Manchester or Nice , i reckon you'll have the posts moved again, and want P60s of Pariseans or Mancunians.
Unless you're of the leftist school of economics, most grown ups realise by increasing expenditure in public service, the money doesn't come from the fairies. Its either moved from one header, or funded directly. If the former, another service suffers. Thats how tax works.
I won't say you cant win arguing with someone like you, its a case of theres no point. You're here for one reason. Derail.
Gss light and strawman.
So I'm done discussing in good faith with you.
But cows....
Seriously.
I'm still at a loss.0 -
Sweden is still reeling after 3 Afghan migrants (father and 2 sons) killed another migrant that had fled onto a bus.
Swedish news website Nyheter Idag has reported that the 3 came to Sweden in 2012 and initially applied for asylum but were rejected.
The three remained somehow for 3 years and applied again in 2015.
They got permanent residency permits, 2 becoming Swedish citizens 2019.
A year later they killed a man in a honour killing.
https://theliberal.ie/afghan-migrant-and-two-sons-arrested-follow-stabbing-death-on-bus-in-swedish-town/0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »No one said that.
Youre gas craic.
In a thread about jihadi attacks in Europe...
You claim fear of an Islamic attack is irrational - a phobia, things were worse in the 80s.
When given evidence of the rise in Jihadi attacks in Europe, you move the posts and say ah no, I'm talking about all terrorism in Europe.
When shown evidence probability of being killed in a terrorist attack in Europe is higher than the 80s, you move the goals again and say you're only talking about Western Europe.
Poster makes a claim people in Paris, Manchester and Nice are paying increased taxes to combat terrorism, you look for evidence.
When shown an actual tax on fags and insurance to combat terrorism in Berlin, we find suddenly the goals aren't for moving, and you're insisting on something for Paris, Nice or Manchester.
When shown a tax on insurance to help fund victims of terrorism in Paris, its no, it had to be to fight terrorism.
While there are plenty of reports on the cost of counter terrorism, and even if someone produced the municipal revenue and expenditure budget of all of Paris, Manchester or Nice , i reckon you'll have the posts moved again, and want P60s of Pariseans or Mancunians.
Unless you're of the leftist school of economics, most grown ups realise by increasing expenditure in public service, the money doesn't come from the fairies. Its either moved from one header, or funded directly. If the former, another service suffers. Thats how tax works.
I won't say you cant win arguing with someone like you, its a case of theres no point. You're here for one reason. Derail.
Gss light and strawman.
So I'm done discussing in good faith with you.
But cows....
Seriously.
I'm still at a loss.
Now now, let's not tell blatant lies about our timelines here.
I stated that fear of a jihadi attack was irrational because they are still very very unlikely to affect you. I also stated that it wasn't rational if you weren't also afraid of terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s when they were more common.
From the very start, I was clear that I was talking in reference to Western Europe, where presumably the vast majority of users on an Irish website are located (and in fact specifically highlighted that outside of Western Europe they were on a high due to attacks particularly in Syria, Turkey, Nigeria etc), YOU tried to move the goalposts to Europe in general, I didn't try and move any goalposts as I was clear I was speaking about Western Europe from the start, including linking to a study discussing Western Europe.
Then a poster made a claim that people in Paris, Madrid, London and Manchester were not able to go about their lives as normal due to tax increases, so I asked for specifics on the tax increases in those cities (to see how egregious they must have been to prevent people from living a normal life), and you butted in with a post about Germany, which last time I checked contains neither Paris, Madrid London and Manchester, so once more it was YOU who tried to shift the goal posts.
Finally you pointed to an actual tax increase in France which amounted to under €2.....and I stated that I don't believe this to be such an egregious amount as to prevent Parisians from going about their normal every day lives (which was the starting point of this topic).
So clearly the only attempts to actually move goalposts are coming from you, and now you're going to take your ball and go home? Best of luck. Don't forget to check under your bed.CtevenSrowder wrote: »Calling the first part Islamophobia is patently ridiculous. I've a dislike of White-nationalists as a political force, does that make me racist towards white people? Or White-phobic?
I'd suggest you take that up with the people at the Oxford English dictionary as unfortunately I do not control the definition of words.
I did see your other more extensive post, I'm probably in broad agreement on most of it, but the match is about to come back on so I'll reply directly to it afterwards.0 -
I did see your other more extensive post, I'm probably in broad agreement on most of it, but the match is about to come back on so I'll reply directly to it afterwards.
I envy you being able to watch the match:pac:
I meant to frame what I said as a question. Do you agree with the definition?0 -
I stated that fear of a jihadi attack was irrational because they are still very very unlikely to affect you.
I also stated that it wasn't rational if you weren't also afraid of terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s when they were more common.
Every one of your points has been refuted.Then a poster made a claim that people in Paris, Madrid, London and Manchester were not able to go about their lives as normal due to tax increases
Ok. Who?0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »I envy you being able to watch the match:pac:
I meant to frame what I said as a question. Do you agree with the definition?
I don't really get the question. The definition is the definition, I neither agree nor disagree with it, it just is.
If your point is around the politicisation of the term leading to the current definition, there's certainly room for discussion around that, but I'd consider the Oxford English Dictionary a greater authority on the meaning of words than you or I, so I don't think we're in a position to change the meaning of it here.
Regarding your original post which I said I'd respond toCtevenSrowder wrote: »Ok, but the point is that Daesh's terrorist reach is near global, and primarily religious based . Every inhabited continent bar South America has been affected by them. Their (and a lot of Islamic terrorism) is carried out with the aim of having an Islamic caliphate that is Global. The demands of the IRA, and ETA, were more reasonable in comparison, importantly not based on some interpretation of a religious textbook, and actually attainable.
Even the Taliban (who is some respects are less extreme than ISIS) currently have a campaign of murdering prominent women in Afghani society due to their interpretation of the Koran.
I don't disagree with any of this, on a global level we certainly need to combat this kind of terrorism in a different manner. I don't think it is prominent enough to make any changes to my day to day life though, and I don't think the terrorists' goals are particularly relevant to a risk assessment when it comes to how likely I am to be impacted.
To be very clear, I am not suggesting that Daesh and the likes do not need to be dealt with. I just think that perhaps our methods for dealing with them should be somewhat more precise than blanket actions towards a quarter of the world's population as some suggest. I would have precisely zero qualms on action being taken should someone be apprehended due to evidence they are involved in planning an attack in any way whatsoever, including deportation. I would not be in favour of applying a guilty until proven innocent mentality to all Asylum Seekers, or creating additional blocks for Muhammad the Software Engineer coming here to work.Europe has not seen this type of terrorism that is near solely religiously based to the extent we do now, and it is that fact that is so alarming.
While true, why is the fact that the terrorist is using religion to justify their actions more significant than should they be using politics or nationalism? The outcome is still the same for me if I'm caught in an explosion from a bomb set to advance a Neo Nazi agenda, for Basque independence or to further the pursuit of a global Islamic caliphate (to be clear I am not making any comment here on the merits of any of those goals or suggesting they are equal, purely provided as examples of justifications various terrorists have used)I don't necessarily disagree, but would you accept that Islam pays a prominent part aswell?
There is plenty to fear abut any religion, we are simply lucky that where we live now the religious don't have a prominent hold on society. Islam is particularly bad in this regard these days.
Certainly I would agree that certain interpretations of Islam are a prominent part of the current motivation and those specific interpretations are particularly bad. I suspect that blanket reactions towards all Muslims, the VAST VAST majority of whom do not interpret the Quran in this manner, (be those reactions from a government perspective or from people on a personal level) would increase the reach of niche, violent interpretation rather than choke it off.
I don't think Islam/the Quran is inherently more dangerous than other faiths though, no. There's plenty of bloodthirsty ways pretty much any religious text could be interpreted. If one wants to justify violence, one can usually find a way to do so to satisfy their own requirements there.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Every one of your points has been refuted.
My initial point was that terrorist attacks in Western Europe were higher in the 70s and 80s than they are now. Can you point out where this was refuted?
My second point was that in Paris, Madrid, London and Manchester, people were mostly just going about their lives as normal. Can you point out where this was refuted?
Everything in between has been you trying to move the goalposts and ironically try and accuse me of doing the same, when I've been entirely consistent with those two points.Ok. Who?
The poster who directly replied to my comment that people in those cities were going about their lives as normal, stating that this was not the case due to the tax increases. Following this, I asked what tax increases were being experienced in those cities so I could see which were so egregious that it was preventing people living their normal lives.0 -
In one country I lived and worked in, and was pretty multicultural in that you could find a good cross section of people, and religions. Country was not noted for any attacks, let alone religion driven ones, and was actually very quite, if you allow for the "normal" level of criminality. On the way to work each morning I used to pick up a few colleagues, and at the end of the working day, drop them off again. Had been doing this routinely more than 2 years,,,no problems. Then one weekend, the peace and quiet was shattered when there was an attack on the local police station,2 policemen were killed and several more injured, some badly. The armoury was broken into, and a large quantity of weapons and ammunition were stolen. Come monday morning, one of my colleagues was missing, but nothing strange in that.. happened ocassionly. Next day same thing happened, and again on wednesday. But then his wife came to ask if we could help locate her husband, as the police had arrested him in the middle of the night as he had participated in the attack.And he had vanished in police custody. We never heard from him again.
Now the point of this story is that after working with a person for more than 2 years, and thinking that you knew him well, turns out you did not know him at all.. and if there was a line up of all the staff, and you was asked to pick the most likely candidate, he would have come a very distant last. Yet that was what he was, just waiting for the switch to be thrown before he acted. The fact that he was a Wahabbi is incidental, but its from that brand of Islam isis take their ideology, and he was quite prepared to bomb and kill innocent people. Even my colleagues or me for that matter. Now to anyone who jumps straight away on to the "Islamophobia" accusation, next time bear in mind that there is basis as to why people think like they do. Radial Islam exists, and it's highy active. Would be very interesting to see just how many "suspected terrorists" are currently on the watch list in the EU, and even more interesting to see how many are under the radar waiting for the switch to be thrown.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »No one said that.
You know it. I know it.
Except a poster DID state that in response to my post;
I said
The majority of people in Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are going about their lives and not spending every waking moment checking under their beds for suicide bombers. I'll leave that to you.
To which the poster directly repliedThe average person in the cities and country’s you mentioned are paying a higher tax because they are funding more police, more intelligence, more immigration, more housing, more shelter, more health, more benefits, more everything as a result of more people turning up, some legitimately, some legally but some or many not meeting any criteria of entitlement to be there.
So was the reply directly made to my post meant to directly contradict my point in that post that people were going about their lives, or was it a total non-sequitur?
If that poster wasn't suggesting that these increased taxes were preventing people in those cities from going about their lives, why address it in reply to my post stating that they were?
And it was STILL entirely reasonable to respond to that post asking for details on exactly what extra taxes were being paid.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement