Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Common sense has prevailed in the CPS, it seems.
Richard Gear Evans was taken into custody after allegedly writing in a Facebook post: “It’s my dad’s company, I don’t get involved. It’s a shame they don’t hire out a steam rollers or tanks, could have done a good job then [sic].”
South Wales Police said he had subsequently been released without charge following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.
Son of van hire owner in Finsbury Park attack arrested after 'it's a shame they couldn't hire a tank' comment
Does anyone here think he should have been arrested or even charged with something?
"Does anyone here think he should have been arrested or even charged with something?"
No he shouldn't have been arrested, what a waste of the British peoples' taxmoney, also this is what the British police consider of paramount importance, arresting people for writing WORDS on Facebook?
What happened to Freedom of Speech?
Just out of curiousity - isn't Europe a good bit weaker in terms of "free speech"? I'm thinking they have hate speech laws (we don't) and laws against holocaust denial speech. Several times European members here have complained about "hate speech" on our site. That FB stuff would never have come up in the US as a crime.
They have no free speech. They wouldn't want to offend their Moslem conquerors.
They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited. They have more limits on it then we do but it's far far freer than in countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia or a lot of others where political and social dissidents are routinely jailed.
I can't understand why people seek to offend for no other purpose then to offend.
If you look at the coverage surrounding this event and many others - it's quite evident there is a good bit of free speech. And they made the right decision in the FB case. People have a right to be ass' in public, as this guy demonstrated - without being arrested for it.
Coyote and Brynmr basically in some form of agreement with each other. We need to check the weather reports now, we're needing to see if it says that Hell has frozen over.
Common sense has prevailed in the CPS, it seems.
Richard Gear Evans was taken into custody after allegedly writing in a Facebook post: “It’s my dad’s company, I don’t get involved. It’s a shame they don’t hire out a steam rollers or tanks, could have done a good job then [sic].”
South Wales Police said he had subsequently been released without charge following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.
Son of van hire owner in Finsbury Park attack arrested after 'it's a shame they couldn't hire a tank' comment
Does anyone here think he should have been arrested or even charged with something?
"Does anyone here think he should have been arrested or even charged with something?"
No he shouldn't have been arrested, what a waste of the British peoples' taxmoney, also this is what the British police consider of paramount importance, arresting people for writing WORDS on Facebook?
What happened to Freedom of Speech?
Just out of curiousity - isn't Europe a good bit weaker in terms of "free speech"? I'm thinking they have hate speech laws (we don't) and laws against holocaust denial speech. Several times European members here have complained about "hate speech" on our site. That FB stuff would never have come up in the US as a crime.
They have no free speech. They wouldn't want to offend their Moslem conquerors.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
Have to agree on the Beatles and modern architecture. They both stink.I just gave you a thousand examples. And what has Europe achieved in the past 100 years besides 2 world wars and the proliferation of Islam. Bad architecture and the Beatles? Right. STFU about America. You're talking out your ass.
To cite old paintings turning brown on gallery walls and dead composers as superior culture while Europe is dying is an act of desperation. I liked a lot of the music that came out of England in the 60s but Europe isn't exactly a cultural center these days unless you like Falafels . And their architecture really does suck. America's is awesome!
Yes well stop getting involved in the Middle East like America does which has created the "Refugee Crisis" and also remove all American troops from European soil .
Does that include our dead who perished saving Europe...twice?
We won't be there to save their asses this time. Lucy's just another America basher. Sick of these jerks.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
Have to agree on the Beatles and modern architecture. They both stink.
To cite old paintings turning brown on gallery walls and dead composers as superior culture while Europe is dying is an act of desperation. I liked a lot of the music that came out of England in the 60s but Europe isn't exactly a cultural center these days unless you like Falafels . And their architecture really does suck. America's is awesome!
Yes well stop getting involved in the Middle East like America does which has created the "Refugee Crisis" and also remove all American troops from European soil .
Does that include our dead who perished saving Europe...twice?
Yes I'm sure that Eastern Europa thanks you for helping to put their ENTIRE populations under the brutal Iron Hammer of Satanic Communism for 50 years.
Had you had different Presidents, from a different party, things would have been different and America would have had no dead.
In both situations a Republican President would not have interfered in REGIONAL disagreements 10,000 miles away that had no effect on America.
Woodrow Wilson promised to Keep America Out, and then Bernard Baruch and Stephen Wise had a word with him and then off to war you go.
Franklin D. Roosevelt who was a Communist sympathiser, if not an actual Communist himself, to get reelected promised to Keep America Out, and then was TOLD the day BEFORE that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbour but did NOTHING to alert because allowing the attack to happen gave him the excuse to Get America Involved. But of course America just fighting a Pacific War wasn't good enough for the same Bernard Baruch and Stephen Wise they DEMANDED that American soldiers go 10,000 miles to fight and die to SAVE COMMUNISM, so America got into bed with Stalin and helped his Communist forces to take control of half of the European Continent and America did NOTHING to push them OUT, then sat their for 50 years whilst Eastern Europeans suffered.
America was SILENT in 1956 when the brave Hungarian Patriots attempted to free themselves from the Communist Regime.
Hungarian Revolution of 1956 - Wikipedia
Oddly though the same year America WASN'T silent during the Suez Crisis. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
Suez Crisis - Wikipedia
The fact remains the USA intervened and saved Europe. You want to ignore that as you rail against us.
Europe created their own dilemma taking in all the Muslims, the USA didnt force you. You've opened Pandora's Box...and cant close it
I understand your frustration...but put the blame where it belongs
They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
What's the alternative?
They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited.
Free speech in America has reasonable limits. Europe and Canada's limits to free speech are unreasonable because they exist to appease the unreasonable demands of minorities and satisfy the tyranny of the Left.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
What's the alternative?
They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited.
Free speech in America has reasonable limits. Europe and Canada's limits to free speech are unreasonable because they exist to appease the unreasonable demands of minorities and satisfy the tyranny of the Left.
They do have free speech - no right, including that of free speech - is unlimited.
Free speech in America has reasonable limits. Europe and Canada's limits to free speech are unreasonable because they exist to appease the unreasonable demands of minorities and satisfy the tyranny of the Left.
That is why all these groups want to change your First Amendment to include what they consider "Hate Speech", hate speech = saying nothing to upset the Kebabs and other minorities.
But for instance the Blacks can say Kill All White People and that's not considered hate speech.
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
The impression I got from the reaction of Britain's politicians to this attack was they were more horrified by this attack on a mosque than they were of the attacks on their own non Moslem citizens.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
What's the alternative?
What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?
I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:
- making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
- expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
- better funding for police over all
- better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
- continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
- monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
- working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda
In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:
- the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
- the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
- human trafficking
- the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
- Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
- deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
- Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.
There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:
INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?
HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.
So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...
INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.
HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.
Looking at the coverage - I don't think so. I think this is just one more.
What I think horrifies them is that the potential for civil unrest and more nutters taking things into their own hands in an eye for an eye retaliation - whether it's Islamic or other. All you need is a car or a knife. How do you combat that?
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
What's the alternative?
What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?
I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:
- making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
- expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
- better funding for police over all
- better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
- continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
- monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
- working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda
In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:
- the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
- the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
- human trafficking
- the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
- Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
- deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
- Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.
There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:
INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?
HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.
So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...
INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.
HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.
It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.
When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.
The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.
I wouldn't. Europeans need to rise up and defend their countries. Obviously their politicians won't do it. Sometimes violence is the only answer.
That isn't working so good in Syria....or Libya....
What's the alternative?
What's the alternative to what? Civil unrest? Vigilanteism?
I think in another thread there was discussion of what could be done that included such things as:
- making the possession/distribution of terrorism media - like ISIS propoganda etc illegal in the same way child porn is.
- expelling dual citizens who have any connections to terrorism
- better funding for police over all
- better intelligence sharing amongst European countries
- continuing to work with the Muslim communitee on identifying possible radicalization BEFORE it occurs
- monitor and shut down mosques that actively preach radical jihadism and violence
- working with internet organizations like google etc to quickly identify and remove terrorist propoganda
In the long term though - you need to address the causes and that is a whole lot harder:
- the multiple civil wars and failed states in the Middle East that are creating a power vacuum that groups like ISIS exploit
- the issues that are causing many people to flee and migrate to Europe in droves overwelming Europe's ability to assimilate
- human trafficking
- the role of Islam and integrating it with liberal values and rights particularly tolerance
- Immigrant assimilation - both from the view point of the immigrant groups and that of the host countries - how can we do it better and what can we learn from countries that are more successful?
- deep seated economic and social issues that create a division between immigrant groups and native citizens and create opportunities for radicalism.
- Immigration reform in Europe - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking Europe - France at least - has or had an open immigration policy for members of former colonies and that, combined with an extremely generous welfare policy encouraged thousands of poor, rural, uneducated, low skilled people to immigrate (bringing with them their Imams) - entire villages immigrated, and, settled into their own communities effectively resisting assimilating into the larger culture. This created a huge pool of necessary low skill labor but did little to either improve the econmic or social mobility of the immigrants or encourage assimilation.
There was an interesting interview I listened to, History Of Our Time: Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? -- and the author made a good point - here is an excerpt:
INSKEEP: Suppose President Trump called you up, said, hi, Shadi, interesting book. What's one thing you'd have me do? How would you answer the president in that case?
HAMID: I think there's really only one path that works in sort of addressing it, and that's finding ways to accommodate Islam's role in public life. And we don't have to like it. So President Trump might have a big problem with Islam, but this is a reality that exists in much of the Middle East and South Asia.
So it's not realistic to say, oh, they all have to become, you know, secular liberals who read John Locke. Even if we might want that, that's not realistic or pragmatic. So we have to find ways to say, hey, you can be a conservative Muslim. You can even be an Islamist as long as you respect the rules of the game and you express your ideas within the law and the Constitution in any of these countries...
INSKEEP: Allowing space for people who believe differently than you do.
HAMID: Exactly. People are going to hate each other for legitimate reasons, but they have to hate each other peacefully.
It's the government's job to protect the citizenry. When it fails the citizens go to the ballot box to enact change, when that fails civil unrest may become necessary. That would apply in Europe , the USA or any democracy where the people choose leadership.
When you're dealing with the likes of countries in the ME it's more complex, one faction rules, is deposed and a vacuum is created and another steps up to replace it. Been going on for a millennia.
The problem seems to be being able to assimilate, when you go to another country you adopt that nation's laws, you don't bring your own and expect it to be accepted. Many Muslims do just that but an increasing number refuse to. There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in? It's obvious they can't in Europe and the same problem exists here in the US.
"There is the problem, how do you separate the two? In some cases vetting is impossible, records don't exist or some other reason, how does a nation determine who is safe to let in?"
Which is why the Trump Travel Ban is entirely appropriate, logical and sensible. Considering the majority of these people are coming from literally some of the worst places on this planet, which are very hostile to The West in general and you have no idea who any of these people are - I mean they are not exactly going to announce at the Immigration Desk that they plan to commit acts of terrorism and kill your people - the Trump Travel Ban should not only be for 90 days it should be permanent. Period.
These Activist Groups which include the SPLC and the ACLU are basically Traitors, they do not care about the safety of either the American people or the safety of the American nation, they are using and perverting the American Constitution to go to Leftist Activist Judges to block the Trump Travel Ban and allow in potentially very dangerous individuals under the motto of them being "poor refugees", it's a Trojan Horse.
There is NOTHING in the American Constitution that says you HAVE to allow UNLIMITED amounts of hordes into your nation.
