Will Jeremy Corbyn condemn the shooting of Khalid Masood? (Hence the Far Left Are Idiots)

Hmmmm. I'm guessing that the man wasn't actually a threat to anyone at the time, so ...

Maybe Corbyn and his supporters who dont like the 'shoot to kill' rule when confronting terrorist scum would prefer to let people like Masood carry on stabbing whoever gets in his way.
Perhaps police should have tried to reason with him rather than shooting him dead?

Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmmm. I'm guessing that the man wasn't actually a threat to anyone at the time, so ...

That is not the point, he was killed whilst committing terrorism.

Your do see the irony?

So why are you standing up for Corbyns hypocrisy here.

Forget it, you are the founder of double standards, so its no surprise

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmmm. I'm guessing that the man wasn't actually a threat to anyone at the time, so ...

That is not the point, he was killed whilst committing terrorism.

Your do see the irony?

So why are you standing up for Corbyns hypocrisy here.

Forget it, you are the founder of double standards, so its no surprise

Eh? I'm not.

Is Corbyn in favour of shoot to kill if someone is a direct threat to someone or not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is not the point, he was killed whilst committing terrorism.

Your do see the irony?

So why are you standing up for Corbyns hypocrisy here.

Forget it, you are the founder of double standards, so its no surprise

Eh? I'm not.

Is Corbyn in favour of shoot to kill if someone is a direct threat to someone or not?

No he is not , which is the point and he failed to stand up to his supposed principle

Hence the irony

Do you always look for arguments on every thread.

Seriously get laid woman, or remove that lump of coal up your arse.

As it must be a diamond by now 

Anything else?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh? I'm not.

Is Corbyn in favour of shoot to kill if someone is a direct threat to someone or not?

No he is not , which is the point and he failed to stand up to his supposed principle

Hence the irony

Do you always look for arguments on every thread.

Seriously get laid woman, or remove that lump of coal up your arse.

As it must be a diamond by now 

Anything else?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh? I'm not.

Is Corbyn in favour of shoot to kill if someone is a direct threat to someone or not?

No he is not , which is the point and he failed to stand up to his supposed principle

Hence the irony

Do you always look for arguments on every thread.

Seriously get laid woman, or remove that lump of coal up your arse.

As it must be a diamond by now 

Anything else?

Well that's the point I was making. If the man was not a direct threat to anyone at the time, why would Corbyn not say something.

Speak to me like that again and I'll report you. It's you who's starting an argument. I was agreeing with you - moron.

Anyone who says they dont believe in the shoot to kill policy would soon change their minds if a heavily set terrorist dressed in black was advancing on them with a couple of 8 inch kitchen knives covered in blood from their recently slain victim...and I include Corbyn in that.

Its easy to be talk sat in the safety of your own constituency.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No he is not , which is the point and he failed to stand up to his supposed principle

Hence the irony

Do you always look for arguments on every thread.

Seriously get laid woman, or remove that lump of coal up your arse.

As it must be a diamond by now 

Anything else?

Well that's the point I was making. If the man was not a direct threat to anyone at the time, why would Corbyn not say something.

Speak to me like that again and I'll report you. It's you who's starting an argument. I was agreeing with you - moron.

Report me all you like, you are nothing more than a shit stirrer.

He was a threat, but people like corbyn have the view we should with terrorists, look to keep them alive and not shoot to kill, whilst they are killing people.

Get the point yet  you daft skank?

Even if I wasn't agreeing with you, there's no excuse for what you just said. Disagreeing is not looking for an argument - unless it's you doing it just to be a prat.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's the point I was making. If the man was not a direct threat to anyone at the time, why would Corbyn not say something.

Speak to me like that again and I'll report you. It's you who's starting an argument. I was agreeing with you - moron.

Report me all you like, you are nothing more than a shit stirrer.

He was a threat, but people like corbyn have the view we should with terrorists, look to keep them alive and not shoot to kill, whilst they are killing people.

Get the point yet  you daft skank?

I got the point straightaway, but you chose to misunderstand what I said.

No wonder you ended up on your own.

BBC Trust rules Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn on shoot-to-kill

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html

Raggamuffin wrote:Even if I wasn't agreeing with you, there's no excuse for what you just said. Disagreeing is not looking for an argument - unless it's you doing it just to be a prat.

You do it everyday looking for a fight and when I do it to you, then you claim victim-hood

I am bored with your bullshit

Get used to it

You are on a par with wolf

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's the point I was making. If the man was not a direct threat to anyone at the time, why would Corbyn not say something.

Speak to me like that again and I'll report you. It's you who's starting an argument. I was agreeing with you - moron.

Report me all you like, you are nothing more than a shit stirrer.

He was a threat, but people like corbyn have the view we should with terrorists, look to keep them alive and not shoot to kill, whilst they are killing people.

Get the point yet  you daft skank?

Thor, there is no need to talk to her like that, she simply answered your post.
I did too, but you ignored my response in your haste to pick a row with Rags.

sassy wrote:BBC Trust rules Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn on shoot-to-kill

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html

The Independent and one person?

PMSL
Why are you not claiming he was a freedom fighter sassy for Islam?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Report me all you like, you are nothing more than a shit stirrer.

He was a threat, but people like corbyn have the view we should with terrorists, look to keep them alive and not shoot to kill, whilst they are killing people.

Get the point yet  you daft skank?

Thor, there is no need to talk to her like that, she simply answered your post.
I did too, but you ignored my response in your haste to pick a row with Rags.

Oh now you step in, when she speaks to me like this all the time.

Wow

She is nothing more than a little ignorant immature child.

Got a problem with that?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Even if I wasn't agreeing with you, there's no excuse for what you just said. Disagreeing is not looking for an argument - unless it's you doing it just to be a prat.

You do it everyday looking for a fight and when I do it to you, then you claim victim-hood

I am bored with your bullshit

Get used to it

You are on a par with wolf

I was agreeing with you. Which bit of that do you not understand? Still, now you've chosen to hurl abuse at me, you can take some back, you nasty old bully. Are you drunk yet again? You must be if you can't read posts and understand them.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Report me all you like, you are nothing more than a shit stirrer.

He was a threat, but people like corbyn have the view we should with terrorists, look to keep them alive and not shoot to kill, whilst they are killing people.

Get the point yet  you daft skank?

Thor, there is no need to talk to her like that, she simply answered your post.
I did too, but you ignored my response in your haste to pick a row with Rags.

I didn't even disagree with him - he's a moron who can't read.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thor, there is no need to talk to her like that, she simply answered your post.
I did too, but you ignored my response in your haste to pick a row with Rags.

Oh now you step in, when she speaks to me like this all the time.

Wow

She is nothing more than a little ignorant immature child.

Got a problem with that?

Are you drunk?

Syl wrote:Maybe Corbyn and his supporters who dont like the 'shoot to kill' rule when confronting terrorist scum would prefer to let people like Masood carry on stabbing whoever gets in his way.
Perhaps police should have tried to reason with him rather than shooting him dead?

I guess it would depend on whether the man would have been able to stab anyone with guns trained on him. I gather that they did warn him, but it's not known how he reacted to that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You do it everyday looking for a fight and when I do it to you, then you claim victim-hood

I am bored with your bullshit

Get used to it

You are on a par with wolf

I was agreeing with you. Which bit of that do you not understand? Still, now you've chosen to hurl abuse at me, you can take some back, you nasty old bully. Are you drunk yet again? You must be if you can't read posts and understand them.

There you go Syl?

Hence the view on why Rags is a low life

I have not had a drink in years and yet she uses things to get at people.

No Rags, you are the bully and I am no longer tolerating your bullying

You did not agree at all with what I said

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Oh now you step in, when she speaks to me like this all the time.

Wow

She is nothing more than a little ignorant immature child.

Got a problem with that?

Are you drunk?

Are you kidding me.

Now I know where you stand with that bullshit.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was agreeing with you. Which bit of that do you not understand? Still, now you've chosen to hurl abuse at me, you can take some back, you nasty old bully. Are you drunk yet again? You must be if you can't read posts and understand them.

There you go Syl?

Hence the view on why Rags is a low life

I have not had a drink in years and yet she uses things to get at people.

No Rags, you are the bully and I am no longer tolerating your bullying

You did not agree at all with what I said

Don't dish it out if you can't take it - drunken old fool.

How did you interpret what I said then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There you go Syl?

Hence the view on why Rags is a low life

I have not had a drink in years and yet she uses things to get at people.

No Rags, you are the bully and I am no longer tolerating your bullying

You did not agree at all with what I said

Don't dish it out if you can't take it - drunken old fool.

How did you interpret what I said then?

I am not drunk, so how do you interpret people being in disagreement with you as drunk.

That you are an immature child?

Go back to your first post

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Are you drunk?

Are you kidding me.

Now I know where you stand with that bullshit.

Serves you right for trying to get Syl "on side".

OK...you are sober, but there was no need for abuse Thor.

This thread could be interesting, but I doubt people will enter it just to be abused for no reason.

I am off it...I am allready traumatised because I cant use my usual browser.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't dish it out if you can't take it - drunken old fool.

How did you interpret what I said then?

I am not drunk, so how do you interpret people being in disagreement with you as drunk.

That you are an immature child?

Go back to your first post

You must be drunk to misinterpret my post so badly.

Here you go - tell me what was wrong with this post, and how you interpreted it.

Hmmmm. I'm guessing that the man wasn't actually a threat to anyone at the time, so ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Are you kidding me.

Now I know where you stand with that bullshit.

Serves you right for trying to get Syl "on side".

That is where you are wrong.

I do not want to take sides, as its between me and you, but thank you for proving this is about you deliberately starting again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am not drunk, so how do you interpret people being in disagreement with you as drunk.

That you are an immature child?

Go back to your first post

You must be drunk to misinterpret my post so badly.

Here you go - tell me what was wrong with this post, and how you interpreted it.

Hmmmm. I'm guessing that the man wasn't actually a threat to anyone at the time, so ...

He was a threat yesterday and was killed whilst committing an act of terrorism.

Read back to what Corbyn said before.

You must be a immature child for that reply

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Serves you right for trying to get Syl "on side".

That is where you are wrong.

I do not want to take sides, as its between me and you, but thank you for proving this is about you deliberately starting again.

You appealed to Syl - I saw you do it.

You hurl abuse for no reason and then pretend to be a "victim".

Thorin wrote:

sassy wrote:BBC Trust rules Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn on shoot-to-kill

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html

The Independent and one person?

PMSL
Why are you not claiming he was a freedom fighter sassy for Islam?

It was investigated by the BBC Trust you moron, who found that the tape had be played with to infer he said it about one thing when it was in an entirely different context and nothing to do with terrorism. Now go and have your monthly meltdown, you are obviously in the middle of it, and I have better things to do that play games with a freak.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is where you are wrong.

I do not want to take sides, as its between me and you, but thank you for proving this is about you deliberately starting again.

You appealed to Syl - I saw you do it.

You hurl abuse for no reason and then pretend to be a "victim".

Appealed?

She can do as she pleases, she jumped in your defense and like you wrongly cast me as drunk.

How is that an appeal?

As far as I am concerned, you are both immature bitches that slag off people

Now you have to face me

sassy wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The Independent and one person?

PMSL
Why are you not claiming he was a freedom fighter sassy for Islam?

It was investigated by the BBC Trust you moron, who found that the tape had be played with to infer he said it about one thing when it was in an entirely different context and nothing to do with terrorism.   Now go and have your monthly meltdown, you are obviously in the middle of it, and I have better things to do that play games with a freak.

Ha ha ha

The BBC Trust?

That is an interpretation you racist scum

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You must be drunk to misinterpret my post so badly.

Here you go - tell me what was wrong with this post, and how you interpreted it.

He was a threat yesterday and was killed whilst committing an act of terrorism.

Read back to what Corbyn said before.

You must be a immature child for that reply

If he was a threat, Corbyn isn't being a hypocrite then. Obviously, if someone is a threat he's going to get shot. Corbyn was obviously referring to someone who is not a threat at the time. I don't think you even know what this thread is about, and you started it.

He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708

You appear to be agreeing with Corbyn, so what's your problem?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


He was a threat yesterday and was killed whilst committing an act of terrorism.

Read back to what Corbyn said before.

You must be a immature child for that reply

If he was a threat, Corbyn isn't being a hypocrite then. Obviously, if someone is a threat he's going to get shot. Corbyn was obviously referring to someone who is not a threat at the time. I don't think you even know what this thread is about, and you started it.

He added: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708

You appear to be agreeing with Corbyn, so what's your problem?

Yes he is, as you are no speculating off his views.

He is condemning killing terrorists, of which you are missing

How about you refer to what he said before to attacks and in Israel?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You appealed to Syl - I saw you do it.

You hurl abuse for no reason and then pretend to be a "victim".

Appealed?

She can do as she pleases, she jumped in your defense and like you wrongly cast me as drunk.

How is that an appeal?

As far as I am concerned, you are both immature bitches that slag off people

Now you have to face me

Yes, you appealed to her.

There you go Syl?

Hence the view on why Rags is a low life

You wanted her to agree and back you up.

Face you? You'll fall flat on your own face in a minute.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If he was a threat, Corbyn isn't being a hypocrite then. Obviously, if someone is a threat he's going to get shot. Corbyn was obviously referring to someone who is not a threat at the time. I don't think you even know what this thread is about, and you started it.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708

You appear to be agreeing with Corbyn, so what's your problem?

Yes he is, as you are no speculating off his views.

He is condemning killing terrorists, of which you are missing

How about you refer to what he said before to attacks and in Israel?

I'm not missing anything - it's you who seems to have lost your mind or something. What's the matter with you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes he is, as you are no speculating off his views.

He is condemning killing terrorists, of which you are missing

How about you refer to what he said before to attacks and in Israel?

I'm not missing anything - it's you who seems to have lost your mind or something. What's the matter with you?

Really?

Is that why you avoided my last point?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not missing anything - it's you who seems to have lost your mind or something. What's the matter with you?

Really?

Is that why you avoided my last point?

You didn't have a point! There's something wrong with you - you've attacked me, Syl, and Sassy in this thread for no reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Appealed?

She can do as she pleases, she jumped in your defense and like you wrongly cast me as drunk.

How is that an appeal?

As far as I am concerned, you are both immature bitches that slag off people

Now you have to face me

Yes, you appealed to her.

There you go Syl?

Hence the view on why Rags is a low life

You wanted her to agree and back you up.

Face you? You'll fall flat on your own face in a minute.

No I do not, because I know she likes you and would not come between you

That is the difference between me and you

You are full or hate and what not want her to hate you

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Is that why you avoided my last point?

You didn't have a point! There's something wrong with you - you've attacked me, Syl, and Sassy in this thread for no reason.

Misdirection again

Stick to the points dummy

You're clearly under the influence of some substance Didge, so I'll ignore you and make my own points.

I was actually glad that the police didn't kill the blokes who killed Lee Rigby. They have many years to think about how futile their actions were and how they're not the heroes they thought they would be. I bet even extremist Muslims have forgotten about them already.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're clearly under the influence of some substance Didge, so I'll ignore you and make my own points.

You keep saying you will ignore me and keep coming back for more.

As far as I am concerned, you are worse than philagain.

I Like Wolf and he is horrible, that makes you lower than low love

Raggamuffin wrote:I was actually glad that the police didn't kill the blokes who killed Lee Rigby. They have many years to think about how futile their actions were and how they're not the heroes they thought they would be. I bet even extremist Muslims have forgotten about them already.

So you back wasting tax payers money on scum/

Thor made this thread simply to get his hatred of Corbyn publicised. Corbyn's views are well known.
If a terrorist is presenting a clear and present danger, the police can and should shoot him. And shooting means aiming centre mass and firing several rounds.
Not winging in the leg or shoulder.
Blow a big hole where his heart is.
If no present danger exists, he should be detained.
Pretty simple, and all rational people go along with that philosophy.

Except Thor. Because he clearly is having a brainstorn tonight. His synaptic pathways have tangled. Why would you abuse and argue with a poster that agrees with you?
Go and take your meds Thor, then come back and apologise to Raggs and Sassy.

all terrorists at all times pose a "clear and present danger" since they may be carrying explosives. Therefor ALL terrorists should be terminated on sight

Angry Andy wrote:Thor made this thread simply to get his hatred of Corbyn publicised. Corbyn's views are well known.
If a terrorist is presenting a clear and present danger, the police can and should shoot him. And shooting means aiming centre mass and firing several rounds.
Not winging in the leg or shoulder.
Blow a big hole where his heart is.
If no present danger exists, he should be detained.
Pretty simple, and all rational people go along with that philosophy.

Except Thor. Because he clearly is having a brainstorn tonight. His synaptic pathways have tangled. Why would you abuse and argue with a poster that agrees with you?
Go and take your meds Thor, then come back and apologise to Raggs and Sassy.

Thank you Andy.

I'm actually in two minds about this issue. As LF said, I guess that part of the problem is that if the police perceive someone to be an Islamic terrorist, they might think he could be wearing some kind of explosive device and become a suicide bomber, killing other people at the same time. Masood possibly wasn't a direct threat at the time, but perhaps he refused to drop the knives. It's not clear to me if the police officer intended to kill him. I wouldn't blame him if he had - the man had just stabbed a police officer and was presumably heading for the entrance to Parliament where he could have killed others.

Terrorists like the IRA certainly had no intention of killing themselves, but they were also more difficult to catch in the act because they planted bombs and ran away. I didn't have a problem with them taking out those IRA terrorists in Gibraltar even though they weren't a direct threat at the time - killing them prevented them from killing others in the near future.

On the other hand, it's good if terrorists are sent to prison for a very long time so they can reflect on how they have been rendered completely useless re their "cause".

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No he is not , which is the point and he failed to stand up to his supposed principle

Hence the irony

Do you always look for arguments on every thread.

Seriously get laid woman, or remove that lump of coal up your arse.

As it must be a diamond by now 

Anything else?

And the moon's only in the waning crescent.... What the hell's going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!