Reports of Van hitting Pedestrians on London Bridge in UK

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Apparently a large group of British Imams are refusing to do burial rites for the attackers.

Little snippet:

More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”

The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.

**jhe90**

Ahtman wrote:
Apparently a large group of British Imams are refusing to do burial rites for the attackers.

Little snippet:

More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”

The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.

Good. Glad to see them disowning the Jihadists from having any honour in life or death.

A secular, unmarked or numbered grave in place no one can make them heros,s or a quiet spit out at sea.
Still a decent burial. But no celebration or honour.

**Tactical_Spam**

jhe90 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Apparently a large group of British Imams are refusing to do burial rites for the attackers.

Little snippet:

More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”

The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.

Good. Glad to see them disowning the Jihadists from having any honour in life or death.

A secular, unmarked or numbered grave in place no one can make them heros,s or a quiet spit out at sea.
Still a decent burial. But no celebration or honour.

Throw them in a ditch in the middle of nowhere and let them rot. They don't deserve a burial at all.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Good. More of that will go a long way in countering the negative image of Muslims. Perhaps the next time Islam4UK (or whatever their current incarnation is) protests a soldier's parade burning poppies and abusing our troops, moderate Muslims could counter protest? That'd be a powerful statement.

When you have a very vocal and violent minority, the majority cannot afford to remain silent.

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:

You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.

You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.

**Spacemanvic**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.

You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.

Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.

Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.

**Galas**

Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.

Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.

**Grey Templar**

Galas wrote:
Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.

The thing is, they're still making it about religion. The aggressors are who determines what a war is about. You can't really ignore their angle on this one.

**ZergSmasher**

Galas wrote:
Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.

Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.

These extremists don't care whether you are a Christian or not. If you are not a Muslim (indeed, if you aren't the same kind of Muslim), then in their eyes you are a sub-human abomination or even a servant of Satan himself and can be exterminated at will in the name of Allah. It's right there in the Koran (source:http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx); faithful Muslims are literally called to war against non-Muslims. And the extremists take these verses from the Koran and interpret them in the absolute worst possible way to justify their actions. It doesn't matter whether or not we acknowledge the religious motives of these particular terrorists; they will continue to cause mayhem and destruction in the name or their religion regardless. Something needs to be done about these guys, and we need to not worry about being "politically correct" in how we deal with it. President Trump said something to that effect, and in this case I think he's absolutely right. Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.

**Spacemanvic**

Galas wrote:
Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.

Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.

This thing is about religion. You cannot separate one from the other. Also, how do you propose to fight religion? Can you see it, grab it? Its something that is nebulous, it dwells in the hearts and the minds of its adherents. Even in highly oppressive atheistic socialist and communist states such as the Soviet Union and China found (find) it hard to stamp out religion.

Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice. Or continue on the same path of destruction in kowtowing to the demands of political correctness. It has served the Eu so well of late.

The choice is incredibly clear: live or die.

**ZergSmasher**

^^^
This guy gets it. Exalted!

**Spacemanvic**

Something to chew on:

A more recent tweet of his with an actual link to his feed:
https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/871689221483905024

**Ouze**

nubs getting trolled so hard

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:

Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.

We are in a rock and a hard place with tax.
Lower corporation tax makes us look more appealing as we are more than likely going to have to leave the single market.

It's not impossible but it would require a change to how we collect tax in this country by taxing based on percentage sales on *global* profit. Hence if 50% of the sales were in the UK and you made pre tax profit of £100m across the world then you would be taxed at the corporation rate on 50% of the £100m (so assuming a tax rate of 20% that would £100m x 50% x 20% or £10m tax). The companies based in the UK with a global market would benefit, however those like amazon or google would no longer be able to hide behind moving money around which can happen currently because things are based on *local country* profit.

There would be no benefit from companies moving abroad because the tax would still be the same (assuming the same sales). Additionally smaller businesses would be able to compete better with the likes of Amazon because it evens the playing field.

Obviously this is a simplified version of how things would work but it's the principles that are important.

**sebster**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Something to chew on:

Umm... Tawhidi isn't actually an Imam or a Sheikh, he just plays one on TV, and dupes people too lazy to check credentials.

Pretty much his only place in politics or religion is to make up stupid conspiracy nonsense about Sunni plots to take over the West. His only audience are the gullible far right, eager to believe any negative thing they hear about Islam, either taking him at face value when claims horrible things about Sunni Islam, or condemning him when he makes horrible claims about what believes Shi'ite Islam should do.

Please, stop believing the crazy wingnut bullshitters that deliver stuff like this to you. At some point you need to stop letting yourself be lied to.

EDIT - credit to Ouze for getting in first, and saying the same as me with so many less words

**Future War Cultist**

@ whirlwind

I don't often say this but your tax policy? Good job.

And it's enraging me how far in the open the killers were. One of them worked in the tube for feths sake!

**Bran Dawri**

Whirlwind wrote:

It's not impossible but it would require a change to how we collect tax in this country by taxing based on percentage sales on *global* profit. Hence if 50% of the sales were in the UK and you made pre tax profit of £100m across the world then you would be taxed at the corporation rate on 50% of the £100m (so assuming a tax rate of 20% that would £100m x 50% x 20% or £10m tax). The companies based in the UK with a global market would benefit, however those like amazon or google would no longer be able to hide behind moving money around which can happen currently because things are based on *local country* profit.

There would be no benefit from companies moving abroad because the tax would still be the same (assuming the same sales). Additionally smaller businesses would be able to compete better with the likes of Amazon because it evens the playing field.

Obviously this is a simplified version of how things would work but it's the principles that are important.

And it would cork this way regardless of where the company is based as long as they sell in the UK, right? (Or whatever country the tax rule applies to. Why is this not globally implemented yet?

**Spacemanvic**

He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.

Somebody should tell the Huffington Post about this guy then:

Imam Shaikh M. Tawhidi
The Imam of Peace
Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi is an Australian Shi’i Muslim creationist, educator, speaker, preacher, thinker, researcher and author of Iraqi origin who was born in the Holy City of Qum, Iran, into a spiritual family with a history of decades in the Islamic Seminary. His father Imam Abdulmutalib Tawhidi served as the Senior Imam of the Shi’a Muslim Community in Western Australia and was the first to establish a Shi’a Mosque in the entire state. Shaikh Tawhidi’s lineage includes several Grand Ayatollahs, Arabian Legends such as Hatam al Ta’ei and Prophets Hud and Noah. He is also the maternal grandson of Shaikh Yasin al Rumaithi, a prominent eulogist and orator within the Shi’a faith. Shaikh M. Tawhidi completed his initial studies in Perth, Western Australia, and engaged in Islamic studies, Doctrine, Philosophy and Theology in the Islamic Seminary of the holy city of Qum, Iran, as of January 2007. In the year 2012, he attended the advanced lessons of the Grand Ayatollah Sayid Sadiq Shirazi in jurisprudence and principle, and was advised by his eminence to relocate to the Holy City of Karbala in the year 2013. He studied under the authority of prominent teachers in both the Islamic Seminaries of Karbala and Najaf, of them are Ayatollah Shaikh AbdulKareem al Ha’eri, Ayatollah Shaikh Fadhil al Saffaar, the Grand Ayatollah Shaikh Mohammad al Sanad and Allamah Sayid Hussain al Qazwini. Shaikh M. Tawhidi returned to Australia in 2015, after his journey in the Islamic Seminaries of Qum, Najaf and Karbala, and is considered an internationally active personality being fluent in Arabic, English and Farsi; and has delivered speeches at Hussainiyas, Mosques, Islamic centers, Churches and Universities across the Middle East, Europe, America, Australia and Canada. He has delivered university lessons in doctrine and theology examining the theory of evolution, oneness of existence and the big bang theory. Etc etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/tawhidicom-527

And the Daily Mail:

A Muslim leader has slammed extremists who claim he is a fraud for following Australian law over Sharia and not wanting to form an independent Muslim state.
Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi, who has openly spoken out against ISIS and extremists, confronted members of the Islamic community in a video shared online on Friday.
Imam Tawhidi said he was labelled a 'fake' Shaikh because he prioritised Australian law over Sharia law.
'I am considered a fake because I would die for Australia. I am considered a fake because I live by the Australian constitution,' he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4371064/Muslim-leader-Imam-Shaikh-Mohammad-Tawhidi-called-fake.html#ixzz4jDu4yDA5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And Australia TV:
https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/35631801/heated-argument-erupts-as-australias-muslim-leaders-address-manchester-attack/#page1

And ABC Australia via MSNBC:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australian-muslims-may-resort-to-violence-if-headscarf-laws-not-changed-sa-imam-says/ar-BBqLHSQ

For a guy who is an alleged fraud he does get around.

And those calling him a fraud are the very rabid islamists this thread is about.

If you're going to quote an article about Chloe Patton, don't forget to include this tidbit:

Chloe Patton, post-doctoral researcher, University of South Australia, on ABC online's The Drum yesterday:
BOSTON tragedy has another casualty now: Islam The US Islamophobia industry has seized on the bombing to bolster its campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering, and we would do well to pay careful attention . . . While Muslims may not have faced as many random attacks on the street this time round, they remain fixed in the crosshairs of a multi-million-dollar industry dedicated to the sole purpose of hating them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-25/patton-boston-islamophobia/4651400

Lets not hide who is at fault for the recent attacks. It would seem that there are those who are willing to contort themselves into a logical pretzel in order to maintain their grasp on the fallacy that is political correctness. If only they had to pay for their effort and leave the rest of us out of it.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Spacemanvic wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.

Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.

Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.

So you are telling us about how you “completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship”? Well, thanks I guess.

What BaronIveagh is telling you is that we should frame the US versus THEM as based on a political divide instead of a religious one. Your answer basically amounts to “No the terrorist recruitment rhetoric is 100% right why are you contradicting them?”.
You are free to disagree with him, I don't even know if I personally agree with him, but I'm sure you can do it a little better than that…

ZergSmasher wrote:
Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.

Only if you are fed “alternative fact” is that an accurate description of Donald "Incompetent and Ignorant" Trump's plan. A ban that target Iranians but not Saudi or Pakistani!

Spacemanvic wrote:
Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done.

I'd say ignorance plays a bigger part, and usually (not always but still pretty consistently), those that complain the most about political correctness are the most ignorant.
I'd say the quote just above is a good example: a lot of the people that think the Trump ban is a good idea and that it's only blocked and opposed to because of political correctness don't have any idea what the actual origins of terrorists are, which countries are banned, why, and what kind of immigration they are actually blocking.

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.

Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.

Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.

So you are telling us about how you “completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship”? Well, thanks I guess.

What BaronIveagh is telling you is that we should frame the US versus THEM as based on a political divide instead of a religious one. Your answer basically amounts to “No the terrorist recruitment rhetoric is 100% right why are you contradicting them?”.
You are free to disagree with him, I don't even know if I personally agree with him, but I'm sure you can do it a little better than that…

ZergSmasher wrote:
Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.

Only if you are fed “alternative fact” is that an accurate description of Donald "Incompetent and Ignorant" Trump's plan. A ban that target Iranians but not Saudi or Pakistani!

Spacemanvic wrote:
Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done.

I'd say ignorance plays a bigger part, and usually (not always but still pretty consistently), those that complain the most about political correctness are the most ignorant.
I'd say the quote just above is a good example: a lot of the people that think the Trump ban is a good idea and that it's only blocked and opposed to because of political correctness don't have any idea what the actual origins of terrorists are, which countries are banned, why, and what kind of immigration they are actually blocking.

So you're blaming the British attacks on...Trump?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
So you're blaming the British attacks on...Trump?

Exactly. Trump and cat persons. Checkmate Frazzled!

**Ouze**

I don't think Trump's influence in a worldwide context would count as US politics, by definition.

However, it does seem most definitely off-topic here.

**Frazzled**

No no the quickest way is to discuss Lorek's strange obsession with Rococo artistic styles. Have you seen his house? Dude, dial it back!

To the topic. What is this about one of the terrorists having an Irish link?

**Spacemanvic**

text removed.

**Ouze**

Spacemanvic wrote:
He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.

When you front some bs and get caught, and then double down by citing the Huffington post as a reputable source, I think you should consider the first rule of holes.

**Spacemanvic**

Ouze wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.

When you front some bs and get caught, and then double down by citing the Huffington post as a reputable source, I think you should consider the first rule of holes.

Did you read or view any of the links I provided? I used Huffpo because I was told the imam was a right wing construct. Has Huffpo changed side? How about MSNBC or ABC.au?

**Ouze**

I read enough of the Huffpo article to know they lifted his bio word for word from his website without attribution, including the 2 places where he misspelt the name of the city he was born in.

I'm not spending any more time debunking a grifter who you want to believe in.

**Spacemanvic**

Ouze wrote:
I read enough of the Huffpo article to know they lifted his bio word for word from his website without attribution, including the 2 places where he misspelt the name of the city he was born in.

So you are basing your stance on one article written by a person with an ax to grind who is a known islamic apologist? Just like all the other "articles" that point to her one article? That's one hell of a house of cards.

**Ouze**

Spacemanvic wrote:
That's one hell of a house of cards.

If you're still working on research, why don't you try his own website? I suggest his press release section. BTW, almost all of his press releases are malware-laden gakfarm redirects.

First rule of holes, man. This guy is a scammer who found a niche.

**Galas**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Galas wrote:
Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.

Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.

This thing is about religion. You cannot separate one from the other. Also, how do you propose to fight religion? Can you see it, grab it? Its something that is nebulous, it dwells in the hearts and the minds of its adherents. Even in highly oppressive atheistic socialist and communist states such as the Soviet Union and China found (find) it hard to stamp out religion.

Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice. Or continue on the same path of destruction in kowtowing to the demands of political correctness. It has served the Eu so well of late.

The choice is incredibly clear: live or die.

I don't know exactly why are you people talking about "political correctness". What I said had nothing to do with that, but probably I have just explain myself wrongly. Sorry guys.

Is obvious that to ISIS, this is a religious war. The problem is... that is good to them. They can recruit muslism with much more ease if those muslism have been previously permeated with the "religious war" rethoric.
So we can get along and call this a religious war (That isn't incorrect), but doing that we are actually helping them. Is not about negating the fault that Islam has in all of this. Is about being pragmatic.

But seeing how this thread as gone along I don't think I'm contributing anything of value. Sorry.