Dentist almost has hand severed in Tesco in 'revenge for Lee Rigby' machete attack

First topic message reminder :

Zack Davies shouts 'white supremacy', 'this is revenge' and 'this is for Lee Rigby' as he attacks Dr Sarandev Bhambra in Mold supermarket, court hears.

A trainee dentist suffered life-changing injuries in a​ ​brutal and unprovoked racially-motivated attack at a Tesco store, a court heard. Dr Sarandev Bhambra, of Leeds, was working at Mold in North Wales and was attacked with a machete and a hammer while shopping one lunchtime. Defendant Zack Davies was said to be laughing and shouting "white supremacy", "this is revenge" and "this is for Lee Rigby" as he did so. The victim's hand was almost severed from his arm and he thought he was going to die, jurors were told. Dr Bhambra desperately tried to get away from the defendant and threw items from the shelves to try and trip him as he chased him with the weapons, the court heard.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11691707/Dentist-almost-has-hand-severed-in-Tesco-in-revenge-for-Lee-Rigby-machete-attack.html

Raggamuffin wrote:Why the fuck am I wasting my time with you two?

I hope you don't really consider it a waste of your time. I really don't consider it a waste of my time to debate with people who disagree with me. It might not seem that way, but I really do find it rewarding. If nothing else, it keeps me thinking, and that's something you really cannot put a price upon.

I'm sorry for any hurt feelings. Please continue to disagree with me, it's fantastic from my end

Edit -- I use the word "really" too much.]

Really.

As in to the point where I feel like I'm misspelling "really."

OK, enough out of me this morning ...

Do people not understand that there's a pattern forming, and that these things are all linked, and that there's a knock-on effect? The Islamic extremists, the EDL, the ISIS issue, the murder of a soldier in revenge for deaths of Muslims elsewhere, and this attack on a person in revenge for the death of Lee Rigby?

The Davis trial is still ongoing, so we don't yet know what the outcome will be. It's my view that he attacked the poor dentist because he assumed he was a Muslim - because he's Asian. I think that because the killers of Lee Rigby say they killed him to avenge Muslim deaths.

What will happen if this man doesn't get a very long sentence? Will Islamic extremists take umbrage, even though the victim wasn't a Muslim?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why the fuck am I wasting my time with you two?

I hope you don't really consider it a waste of your time. I really don't consider it a waste of my time to debate with people who disagree with me. It might not seem that way, but I really do find it rewarding. If nothing else, it keeps me thinking, and that's something you really cannot put a price upon.

I'm sorry for any hurt feelings. Please continue to disagree with me, it's fantastic from my end

Edit -- I use the word "really" too much.]

Really.

It's OK.

If you really want to know what I think about the Zimmerman trial, I spoke about it in detail in another thread. I gave you all chance after chance to say why you disagreed with my stance on the evidence, but nobody could come up with anything of any substance. If you have an alternative view to me, feel free to disagree, but please stop this nonsense about me defending him because he's "white". If you keep doing that, I can just say that you're condemning him because you think of him as white.

I find it interesting that Peter Fuller, the man who intervened, is a former soldier. It goes without saying that he did a sterling job in stopping Davies doing more harm to Dr Bhambra. He told Davies that he was a former soldier, and Davies calmed down straightaway. Is that because he identified with Mr Fuller as being associated with Lee Rigby, or did he identify with himself because he thinks of himself as a "soldier"?

Raggamuffin wrote:I find it interesting that Peter Fuller, the man who intervened, is a former soldier. It goes without saying that he did a sterling job in stopping Davies doing more harm to Dr Bhambra. He told Davies that he was a former soldier, and Davies calmed down straightaway. Is that because he identified with Mr Fuller as being associated with Lee Rigby, or did he identify with himself because he thinks of himself as a "soldier"?

Perhaps we will never know? I could hazard a guess that he just found himself feeling calmer and showing respect to the guy, as I guess we all do, when we come across a soldier or military person.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I find it interesting that Peter Fuller, the man who intervened, is a former soldier. It goes without saying that he did a sterling job in stopping Davies doing more harm to Dr Bhambra. He told Davies that he was a former soldier, and Davies calmed down straightaway. Is that because he identified with Mr Fuller as being associated with Lee Rigby, or did he identify with himself because he thinks of himself as a "soldier"?

Perhaps we will never know? I could hazard a guess that he just found himself feeling calmer and showing  respect to the guy, as I guess we all do, when we come across a soldier or military person.

Well he allegedly said to Peter Fuller "we're under attack mate". I wondered if he saw Peter Fuller as a fellow soldier.

Quite possibly.
It's probably a good job Fuller was there, he may not have stopped at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:Do people not understand that there's a pattern forming, and that these things are all linked, and that there's a knock-on effect? The Islamic extremists, the EDL, the ISIS issue, the murder of a soldier in revenge for deaths of Muslims elsewhere, and this attack on a person in revenge for the death of Lee Rigby?

The Davis trial is still ongoing, so we don't yet know what the outcome will be. It's my view that he attacked the poor dentist because he assumed he was a Muslim - because he's Asian. I think that because the killers of Lee Rigby say they killed him to avenge Muslim deaths.

What will happen if this man doesn't get a very long sentence? Will Islamic extremists take umbrage, even though the victim wasn't a Muslim?

It starts with western intervention/corporations that Made the current Islamic extremists.
This is the problem we the WEST started the most recent rounds and we some people are sitting here like we were just minding our own business.
WE are occupying their lands, WE have been subverting their gov'ts, WE have been taking their resources, WE are dropping bombs on them.
whether we like it or not our gov'ts have been openly running a policy of making these peoples life worse so some rich business people in our society can make even more money.

If we want to stop cycle of hate, one of the first steps will be to take from the top 0.0001% that control vastly too many resources.
the problem is the following and as they also control the media they promote hate between the rest of so we don't notice how BIG a problem they are

the world’s 85 richest people own assets with the same value as those owned by the poorer half of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people (including children). Both groups have $US 1.7 trillion. That’s $20 billion on average if you are in the first group, and $486 if you are in the second group.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do people not understand that there's a pattern forming, and that these things are all linked, and that there's a knock-on effect? The Islamic extremists, the EDL, the ISIS issue, the murder of a soldier in revenge for deaths of Muslims elsewhere, and this attack on a person in revenge for the death of Lee Rigby?

The Davis trial is still ongoing, so we don't yet know what the outcome will be. It's my view that he attacked the poor dentist because he assumed he was a Muslim - because he's Asian. I think that because the killers of Lee Rigby say they killed him to avenge Muslim deaths.

What will happen if this man doesn't get a very long sentence? Will Islamic extremists take umbrage, even though the victim wasn't a Muslim?

It starts with western intervention/corporations that Made the current Islamic extremists.
This is the problem we the WEST started the most recent rounds and we some people are sitting here like we were just minding our own business.
WE are occupying their lands, WE have been subverting their gov'ts, WE have been taking their resources, WE are dropping bombs on them.
whether we like it or not our gov'ts have been openly running a policy of making these peoples life worse so some rich business people in our society can make even more money.

If we want to stop cycle of hate, one of the first steps will be to take from the top 0.0001% that control vastly too many resources.
the problem is the following and as they also control the media they promote hate between the rest of so we don't notice how BIG a problem they are

the world’s 85 richest people own assets with the same value as those owned by the poorer half of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people (including children). Both groups have  $US 1.7 trillion. That’s $20 billion on average if you are in the first group, and $486 if you are in the second group.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/

When you say we are occupying "their" lands, you mean Muslim countries in general I suppose. The thing is that the likes of Adebolajo and Anjem Choudary and co are not from those countries, they are British - they were born here and they grew up here, like anyone else who was born here and grew up here. Nobody is taking their land, using their resources, or dropping bombs on them. The problem is that at some point they identify more with people in a country they might never have set foot in than they do with people in the country they know and are part of.

Many people disapproved of the invasion of Iraq, for example, but they still wouldn't go around burning poppies, blowing up the Underground, murdering soldiers, or whatever. When push comes to shove, most British people will back their own country. That's not the case with these extremists. This then creates a "them and us" scenario between groups of people who are all British, who grew up here, and probably would be perfectly good mates if they met.

To claim we have made terrorism is excusing terrorism itself.,
Nobody makes people turn to terrorism, they chose to act themselves into committing acts of terrorism. Certain factors will play a part in the Rhetoric used by extremists to recruit to their cause, by using claims of supposed wrongs done to them. As how can a Muslim in Britain be driven to act at events in a country they have no connection to other than their religion? Which proves more than anything the religion is the underlining factor driving the root cause of those drawn to religious terrorism. Yes terrorists act due to revenge to events, but to say we create them through conflicts which sought to topple a tyrant that killed millions and a regime where millions suffered is a falsehood. Yes the war in iraq is wrong but it is two factions with extreme ideologies in conflict that has driven terrorism more than anything in the Middle east. Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc were formed before any invasions occurred, so to say they have risen because of western intervention is wrong. Al Qaeda had formed even before the first Iraq war. Again the west has played a part in acts of conflict which have led to grievances by some Muslims. This does not explain why Muslims from nations not associated with these conflicts has had them drawn to fight for them. What there is out there, is a well fine-tuned propaganda machine driving the recruitment of terrorists to their cause. To a conflict of supremacy between Saudi and Iran through two opposing Islamic sects. What brought about the rise of these extremists groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc is from Wahhabism. People need to stop making excuses for the root causes of these problems.

I think that a lot of people in the UK don't want to get involved in these Muslim countries. For example, there was a massive protest before the invasion of Iraq, and I don't know one single person who was in favour of the invasion. However, that doesn't mean that they turned on their own country. The British Islamic extremists also objected, but they didn't speak for Britain, they spoke only for themselves and other Muslims.

As soon as they start doing things like burning poppies and flags, and turning up at homecoming parades to abuse soldiers, they alienate the British public because they're not protesting against the Government, they're insulting the majority of the British people. This helps to further the "them and us" scenario.

This in turns enrages some volatile people, and they seek "revenge", especially if they perceive that the police or courts are too soft on those who do these things.

It's not yet really clear what Davies real motive was. He said it was to avenge the death of Lee Rigby, but the perpetrators of that dreadful crime are banged up for a very long time. He also said something about "white supremacy", which is a different issue really.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that a lot of people in the UK don't want to get involved in these Muslim countries. For example, there was a massive protest before the invasion of Iraq, and I don't know one single person who was in favour of the invasion. However, that doesn't mean that they turned on their own country. The British Islamic extremists also objected, but they didn't speak for Britain, they spoke only for themselves and other Muslims.  

As soon as they start doing things like burning poppies and flags, and turning up at homecoming parades to abuse soldiers, they alienate the British public because they're not protesting against the Government, they're insulting the majority of the British people. This helps to further the "them and us" scenario.

This in turns enrages some volatile people, and they seek "revenge", especially if they perceive that the police or courts are too soft on those who do these things.

It's not yet really clear what Davies real motive was. He said it was to avenge the death of Lee Rigby, but the perpetrators of that dreadful crime are banged up for a very long time. He also said something about "white supremacy", which is a different issue really.

That is a very short sighted view of the problem at hand.
Yes the likes of a couple of hundred of Anjem Choudhary's minions was extremely upsetting to many people, including myself by burning poppies. This though was used by people who already had a xenophobic view of Muslims. They capitalized on this to form a group that caused no ends of violence and problems in streets around the country. I have no problem with them countering any protests by Anjem Choudhary, but they protested against Mosques being built and many times, just in areas where Muslims lived. Of course it did not help with the UAF counter protesting which in many cases created violence, but lets be honest many of those protesting were drunken racist yobs.

http://edlcriminals.com/

The one thing about this country is how for decades there has been terrorism, and how there has been by and large sporodic violence in revenge towards both the Irish and Muslims. There has been plenty of sterotyping and abuse, which is never justified by any that spout this. There is no excuse for any violence and to say some will happen, shows that some are easily fueld by others of hate. It is ideologies which use the plight of victims of violence to seek revenge attacks. What has always been good in this country is how many people are not bought into this hateful rhetoric. It is about countering this Rhetoric of hate that matters.

What Davies did was motivated by hate. Its plain and simple. He readily agreed he targeted an Asian. That means it was racial as the attackers of Lee Rigby were not of asian ethnicity but Black. He sterotyped an asian as Muslim and thus his intended targed was both religious and racial.
So "White Supremacy easily falls into this if as seen he was targeted because of his defined racial class. He is going to view any non-white people as inferior. It is a hateful ideology that uses the fear factor again of a view to being taken over. It instills fear as its driving factor. There is no doubt in my mind the motivation of this attack, which was a combination of revenge for the Lee Rigby attack and his racial hatred.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that a lot of people in the UK don't want to get involved in these Muslim countries. For example, there was a massive protest before the invasion of Iraq, and I don't know one single person who was in favour of the invasion. However, that doesn't mean that they turned on their own country. The British Islamic extremists also objected, but they didn't speak for Britain, they spoke only for themselves and other Muslims.  

As soon as they start doing things like burning poppies and flags, and turning up at homecoming parades to abuse soldiers, they alienate the British public because they're not protesting against the Government, they're insulting the majority of the British people. This helps to further the "them and us" scenario.

This in turns enrages some volatile people, and they seek "revenge", especially if they perceive that the police or courts are too soft on those who do these things.

It's not yet really clear what Davies real motive was. He said it was to avenge the death of Lee Rigby, but the perpetrators of that dreadful crime are banged up for a very long time. He also said something about "white supremacy", which is a different issue really.

That is a very short sighted view of the problem at hand.

It's interesting that you're now taking a broader view of this issue - yesterday, you objected to me even mentioning other issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


That is a very short sighted view of the problem at hand.

It's interesting that you're now taking a broader view of this issue - yesterday, you objected to me even mentioning other issues.

In your humble opinion.
How about taking on the points please:


Yes the likes of a couple of hundred of Anjem Choudhary's minions was extremely upsetting to many people, including myself by burning poppies. This though was used by people who already had a xenophobic view of Muslims. They capitalized on this to form a group that caused no ends of violence and problems in streets around the country. I have no problem with them countering any protests by Anjem Choudhary, but they protested against Mosques being built and many times, just in areas where Muslims lived. Of course it did not help with the UAF counter protesting which in many cases created violence, but lets be honest many of those protesting were drunken racist yobs.

http://edlcriminals.com/

The one thing about this country is how for decades there has been terrorism, and how there has been by and large sporodic violence in revenge towards both the Irish and Muslims. There has been plenty of sterotyping and abuse, which is never justified by any that spout this. There is no excuse for any violence and to say some will happen, shows that some are easily fueld by others of hate. It is ideologies which use the plight of victims of violence to seek revenge attacks. What has always been good in this country is how many people are not bought into this hateful rhetoric. It is about countering this Rhetoric of hate that matters.

What Davies did was motivated by hate. Its plain and simple. He readily agreed he targeted an Asian. That means it was racial as the attackers of Lee Rigby were not of asian ethnicity but Black. He sterotyped an asian as Muslim and thus his intended targed was both religious and racial.
So "White Supremacy easily falls into this if as seen he was targeted because of his defined racial class. He is going to view any non-white people as inferior. It is a hateful ideology that uses the fear factor again of a view to being taken over. It instills fear as its driving factor. There is no doubt in my mind the motivation of this attack, which was a combination of revenge for the Lee Rigby attack and his racial hatred.

Cuchulain wrote:

What Davies did was motivated by hate. Its plain and simple. He readily agreed he targeted an Asian. That means it was racial as the attackers of Lee Rigby were not of asian ethnicity but Black. He sterotyped an asian as Muslim and thus his intended targed was both religious and racial.
So "White Supremacy easily falls into this if as seen he was targeted because of his defined racial class. He is going to view any non-white people as inferior. It is a hateful ideology that uses the fear factor again of a view to being taken over. It instills fear as its driving factor. There is no doubt in my mind the motivation of this attack, which was a combination of revenge for the Lee Rigby attack and his racial hatred.

He says he did it in revenge for Lee Rigby, so clearly it's Muslims he has a problem with. As you say, the attackers of Lee Rigby are black, but he didn't go for a black man, he went for an Asian man, who is actually a Sikh. It's not clear if the man could be identified as a Sikh at the time, but if not, then Davies went for someone he perceived as being a Muslim.

It's possible that he sees anyone who is not white as a potential enemy of the "white race", but I think it's too simplistic to say that he was motivated by hate based on race. I don't think he sees non-white people as inferior. If anything, he sees them as a threat.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

What Davies did was motivated by hate. Its plain and simple. He readily agreed he targeted an Asian. That means it was racial as the attackers of Lee Rigby were not of asian ethnicity but Black. He sterotyped an asian as Muslim and thus his intended targed was both religious and racial.
So "White Supremacy easily falls into this if as seen he was targeted because of his defined racial class. He is going to view any non-white people as inferior. It is a hateful ideology that uses the fear factor again of a view to being taken over. It instills fear as its driving factor. There is no doubt in my mind the motivation of this attack, which was a combination of revenge for the Lee Rigby attack and his racial hatred.

He says he did it in revenge for Lee Rigby, so clearly it's Muslims he has a problem with. As you say, the attackers of Lee Rigby are black, but he didn't go for a black man, he went for an Asian man, who is actually a Sikh. It's not clear if the man could be identified as a Sikh at the time, but if not, then Davies went for someone he perceived as being a Muslim.

It's possible that he sees anyone who is not white as a potential enemy of the "white race", but I think it's too simplistic to say that he was motivated by hate based on race. I don't think he sees non-white people as inferior. If anything, he sees them as a threat.  

Yes but the killers of Lee Rigby were black.
He thus racially sterotypes Muslims as Asian.
The point you are missing.
He stated he targetted him because he was Asian.
He thus views racially Muslims as Asian.
It is possible he does see anyone non-white as the enemy, being as he is a White supreamcist.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He says he did it in revenge for Lee Rigby, so clearly it's Muslims he has a problem with. As you say, the attackers of Lee Rigby are black, but he didn't go for a black man, he went for an Asian man, who is actually a Sikh. It's not clear if the man could be identified as a Sikh at the time, but if not, then Davies went for someone he perceived as being a Muslim.

It's possible that he sees anyone who is not white as a potential enemy of the "white race", but I think it's too simplistic to say that he was motivated by hate based on race. I don't think he sees non-white people as inferior. If anything, he sees them as a threat.  

Yes but the killers of Lee Rigby were black.
He thus racially sterotypes Muslims as Asian.
The point you are missing.
He stated he targetted him because he was Asian.
He thus views racially Muslims as Asian.
It is possible he does see anyone non-white as the enemy, being as he is a White supreamcist.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.

It's the other way round - he stereotypes Asians as Muslims.

He was motivated by hate in that he perceives Muslims as being murderers or at least of excusing the killing of Lee Rigby. Of course some did do that, and some even praised his killers. The vast majority did not, but of course we didn't hear much from them because the press aren't very interested.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes but the killers of Lee Rigby were black.
He thus racially sterotypes Muslims as Asian.
The point you are missing.
He stated he targetted him because he was Asian.
He thus views racially Muslims as Asian.
It is possible he does see anyone non-white as the enemy, being as he is a White supreamcist.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.

It's the other way round - he stereotypes Asians as Muslims.

He was motivated by hate in that he perceives Muslims as being murderers or at least of excusing the killing of Lee Rigby. Of course some did do that, and some even praised his killers. The vast majority did not, but of course we didn't hear much from them because the press aren't very interested.

No I had it right the first time round.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.
The trial will prove this.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the other way round - he stereotypes Asians as Muslims.

He was motivated by hate in that he perceives Muslims as being murderers or at least of excusing the killing of Lee Rigby. Of course some did do that, and some even praised his killers. The vast majority did not, but of course we didn't hear much from them because the press aren't very interested.

No I had it right the first time round.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.
The trial will prove this.

No. He obviously saw the killers of Ree Rigby and knew they weren't Asian, so he doesn't stereotype Muslims as Asians.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

No I had it right the first time round.
He was motivated by hate of race and religion.
The trial will prove this.

No. He obviously saw the killers of Ree Rigby and knew they weren't Asian, so he doesn't stereotype Muslims as Asians.

Hearsay.
He freely admitted to targeting this Asian.
He did this because of Lee rigby
Muslims killed Lee Rigby.
He thus racially sterotypes Muslims as Asian.

I'm still a bit intrigued about this claim that Zack Davies is a Muslim convert who allegedly said on Facebook “The wrath of Allah is about to come down upon the kaffir, I will have my revenge.”

Could it have been a fake Facebook Account? It was allegedly said on the morning of the attack - before the attack.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. He obviously saw the killers of Ree Rigby and knew they weren't Asian, so he doesn't stereotype Muslims as Asians.

Hearsay.
He freely admitted to targeting this Asian.
He did this because of Lee rigby
Muslims killed Lee Rigby.
He thus racially sterotypes Muslims as Asian.

No, he stereotypes Asians as Muslims.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm still a bit intrigued about this claim that Zack Davies is a Muslim convert who allegedly said on Facebook “The wrath of Allah is about to come down upon the kaffir, I will have my revenge.”

Could it have been a fake Facebook Account? It was allegedly said on the morning of the attack - before the attack.

I would take that with a pinch of salt.
Second post, no I am not wrong.

It's possible that he sees all non-white people as Muslim.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's possible that he sees all non-white people as Muslim.

Anything is possible, but we have to go off the details in this case so far.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's possible that he sees all non-white people as Muslim.

Anything is possible, but we have to go off the details in this case so far.

Well there aren't many details so far.

In fact, I don't think Davies understands his motive either. He has allegedly said that it didn't matter to him what religion the victim was, but he also allegedly said that "jihadi violence" had led him to believe that Europe was under siege.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mold-tesco-attack-trial-zack-9513884

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I don't think Davies understands his motive either. He has allegedly said that it didn't matter to him what religion the victim was, but he also allegedly said that "jihadi violence" had led him to believe that Europe was under siege.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mold-tesco-attack-trial-zack-9513884

Which would mean racial hatred.
I am sure he is going to say many things, but it will be easy to see what his motivation is.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I don't think Davies understands his motive either. He has allegedly said that it didn't matter to him what religion the victim was, but he also allegedly said that "jihadi violence" had led him to believe that Europe was under siege.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mold-tesco-attack-trial-zack-9513884

Which would mean racial hatred.
I am sure he is going to say many things, but it will be easy to see what his motivation is.

We'll see. The trial hasn't been going long.

He said he also wanted to attack noisy tenants.

veya_victaous wrote:WTF!!!!!
and people wonder why we are better off without guns    hopefully the victim can make a decent recovery , it would be real shame if a dentist was lost to the profession due to some racist lout.

Hopefully it's not the hand he uses to drill teeth.

This country has a drastic shortage of good dentists.