"Hunt for second man after teenagers die in Hayes car crash Police are seeking a second man in relation to a car crash that killed three boys who were waiting at a bus stop to go to a party." Hmm, this kind of er, accident seems to be happening more often. What does the multiculti brigade think about it? Anyone?? https://news.sky.com/story/victim-of-hayes-bus-stop-car-crash-named-as-harry-rice-11225286
"Man charged with dangerous driving over crash deaths of three teenagers" Mmm, just as I thought; Jaynesh Chudasama doesn't sound like a good ol' Anglo-Saxon name to me, so it's obviously another terrorist attack. One day the 'Don't panic' liberal curtain-twitchers and panty wetters will eventually get the message, I suppose, although I wouldn't bet on it! The point is that these jihadists don't care about the consequences of their atrocities; they know they'll just spend a few months in the slammer (if they get caught), then they can come out and do it all over again. Honestly you just couldn't make it up! Edit, forgot link http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/second-man-arrested-car-crash-deaths-three-teenagers-7267830/
It might seem that way to you, because you’re actively seeking out anything you can twist to fit your preconceptions, but isn’t actually happening more often though. There have been, and probably will be in the future, terrorist attacks involving driving in to pedestrians but there will also continue to be many thousands of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians, accidental and intentional, which have absolutely nothing to do with it. There is literally nothing to gain from assuming every single collision must be terrorism and therefore every time the police say there is no evidence of terrorism, they’re lying as part of some grand coverup. That’s because it’s a good old Hindu Indian name. Are you really this ignorant or are you deliberately lying for some ulterior motive?
I know this subject doesn't fit in with your almost neurotic liberal stance, but these attacks ARE ongoing and increasing; also the police don't lie, they are (shall I say) economical with the facts until they have no choice than to reveal them, and that's at the government's behest so as to keep the event(s) as low-profile as possible. I also believe that this new practice of the BBC broadcasting 'trtibutes' to victims is a ploy to detract from the events themselves. I don't GAF what kind of name it is, only that - as I said, but trust you to read more into it! - that it wasn't an Anglo-Saxon one. It was a terrorist attack, as was the pre-Christmas Eve stabbing of 3 or was it 4 young lads, and you know it as well as I do.
Also have you noticed a pattern developing here - that nearly all attacks are being directed at youngsters?
I’m neurotic? You’re the one seeing terrorists in every shadow. There has been a spate of terrorist attacks using vehicles and it’s likely that there will be more but there are also vastly more car collisions which are not terrorist motivated. To presume that a collision must be a terrorist attack without any specific evidence or reason to back that up is either irrational paranoia or a deliberate ploy to create greater fear of terrorism that is justified. The police are not “economical with the facts” and there is no government cover-up of terrorist attacks. The police only present the facts. If there is no evidence of terrorist motives (yet), that’s what they say. If there is evidence of terrorist motives, they say that too. How else would have found out about the vehicle attacks that were terrorism? The media do that for all victims of high-profile incidents, especially if they’re young and there are cute pictures available. You’d need to demonstrate a change in behaviour between reporting of terrorism victims compared to others to back up your accusation. Don’t p*ss on me and tell me it’s raining! The only reason I can see to mention the suspects name isn’t “Anglo-Saxon” is to build a “foreign therefore terrorist” link. If you had another intention in that statement, do please explain it. Or get defensive, accuse me of being pedantic and refuse to engage any further as usual.
I’ll stop contradicting you when you stop being wrong. You can’t expect to keep posting wild speculation, misleading spin and outright lies without being challenged on them.
Speculation, wild or not, is a perfectly legitimate method of conversation on a messageboard. Oh, and I DO NOT lie, so feel free to apologise for accusing me of doing so?? Thank you. (pompous prat!)
You can speculate all you like but you can’t complain when people challenge your speculation when it’s irrational and divisive. The lie in this case was your assertion that because the suspects name isn’t Anglo Saxon, it is obviously a terrorist attack. I’m not going to apologise for calling you out on it.
It was NOT 'a lie' it was an inference predicated on the fact that most such attacks have been terrorist related? I mean how many can you think of which weren't? But I have to hand it to you - you always squirm out of my contra-perspectives with panache. Incidentally I didn't expect an apology - liberal zealots will seldom admit they were wrong.
No it wasn’t. It was a direct, stand-alone statement; because their name isn’t Anglo Saxon, it is obviously a terrorist attack. That logic is false and you knew it was false when you wrote it. Well there’s this example, the one you posted the same unsupported claims about a couple of weeks back, plus a few of hundred more; http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/1653-uk-road-casualties - “There were 408 pedestrian deaths in the UK in 2015”. There have been a handful of terrorist attacks in the UK involving driving in to pedestrians (which are very serious a deserving of specific attention) but the vast majority of pedestrians deaths are not terrorist related and so automatically presuming any incident must be terrorism without any specific reasons to do so remains either irrational or dishonest.
When the authorities are doing their level best to cover up the extent so as not to risk public disquiet, who knows what the true stats are. Anyway, and yet again, I've had enough of your word games so as far as I'm concerned that's it, and I'll be ignoring any more of them from now on.
You keep making that accusation yet you’ve provide literally no evidence to back it up. Now, rather than defend your claims, you’re just going to cowardly run away. I’m sure next time you happen to see a crash reported you’ll be back out with the same old unsupported claims though. I really don’t see what you think you’re achieving.
My last word: I'm not 'cowardly' nor am I 'running away', I simply perceive that we rationalise at totally different levels (think 'chalk and cheese'?), and for that reason there's never going to be a meeting of minds, so what on earth is there to be gained by continuously arguing when on each and every subject you're convinced you're right and I'm convinced I am? Answer - nothing! It isn't personal, it's just that I've been on discussion forums long enough to know it happens. It happens in real life too, so for the sake of my BP I simply physically avoid my antagonist - and it works, because my BP is spot-on.
The Cerby snowflake tactic again? What comes next? Threatening to ignore the other member? In essence HonestJoe is right that you pulling these allegations out of your nether regions since you have nothing to support it being a terrorist attack rather than just another unfortunate accident.
I’m not expecting a meeting of minds (and certainly not for you to publically admit it even if it happened). My posts are more for other people who might read your thread. I’m highlighting the singular lack of evidence or logic behind your assertions so that hopefully nobody buys in to them blindly but instead stops and thinks more carefully about them. Of course, you could actually address the questions I (and others) ask and present some kind of evidence and rational reasoning for your conclusions, though I’m not going to hold my breath for that one. Maybe not seeing terrorism in every traffic accident might help your blood pressure too?
Reading the follow up link indicates that it was possible the driver was DRUNK! http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/hunt-second-suspect-car-crash-killed-three-teenagers-7266509/ Devout Muslims don't drink! So what we have so far is a vehicle traveling at high speed involved in an accident and an Asian man who was subsequently attacked who appeared to be severely intoxicated. But to you this is evidence of "terrorism"?
Standing behind a twitching curtain, wet panties and looking for any reason not to venture out into the big wide world that has changed so much! This is not a terrorist attack, the guy was chased and beaten up by some youths, sick of a certain type of cowardly brit making political capital out of three kids tragic deaths. Shame
Like I keep saying, I made no claim therefore 'evidence' wasn't called for; rather, in the accepted protocol of messageboard discussions, I suggested the possibility based upon the evidence of it having happened a few times hitherto, so it also could have been a terrorist attack. There, so you didn't 'have to hold your breath' after all. And as a final word (because you're really beginning to annoy me now), I suggest that rather than sit there looking at your screen all day, waiting impatiently for something to get all indignant about, you might use some of your time to do something else too, lest you should break out with self-satisfaction?
My emphasis. You tried to present evidence (albeit ignorant and fundamentally flawed) and made a direct assertion; it is a terrorist attack. I covered the general possibility aspect too though, such as with statistics on the total pedestrian deaths to show that the vast majority aren’t from the handful of terrorist acts but you dismissed this with your still unsupported accusation of government and police covering up that incidents are terrorism. Ultimately, you’ve still not given any solid reasons to presume this incident is likely to have been a terrorist attack or that any collision with pedestrians is likely to be a terrorist act without any specific evidence pointing in that direction. Going to that conclusion as a default is counter-productive and potentially dangerous, leading to innocent (of terrorism at least) drivers being unjustly accused and attacked, exaggerating the fear of terrorism among the public and distracting from measures to prevent road deaths in general (for example, if this was actually a case of drink driving as has been suggested, that should be the focus of attention).
In a short space of time there have been more 'accidents' where vehicles have, for no apparent reason mounted pavements at speed and ploughed into pedestrians than I can remember over my lifetime so far. Indeed I don't remember any at all. Do you agree with that? A yes or no will do!
No. There have recently been a handful of naturally high profile incidents where the apparent reason was an act of terrorism. There will also be a relatively consistent number of lower profile incidents with various other apparent reasons (driver error, mechanical failure, true accidents, intentional attack not related to terrorism etc.). Very few incidents will have no apparent reason once it have been properly investigated but many only get significant media attention in the immediate aftermath, long before any investigation has completed.
Well we are at loggerheads on everything then, so I'm now withdrawing from this thread. The last words on the discussion are yours, and will probably include the terms 'running away' 'ignorant' 'flawed' and 'you could address the questions'. The point is that I did address the questions but you conveniently forgot to discuss some of them back, because they didn't fit in with your liberal narrative; you know the difference as well as I do between a 'pedestrian and car accident' and a contrived one. But for the sake of my being able to spend more time on other threads, I can live with it. Anyway, it's all yours.
