Man stabbed to death in broad daylight in a Tesco parking lot in Slough

First topic message reminder :

A MAN was today stabbed to death in front of terrified Tesco shoppers.

Cops rushed to the supermarket's car park in Slough, Berks, at 12.32pm following reports of a stabbing.

They found a man had been critically injured and he was taken to hospital.

But he was pronounced dead a short time later and cops have now launched a murder investigation.

His next of kin have not been informed and the knifeman is still at large.

Cops are already reviewing CCTV and have describing the attack as a "shocking incident".

The store has been forced to shut the car park however there is no suggestion the supermarket has been closed.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9030038/slough-stabbing-man-knifed-to-death-tesco/

Must have been a horrific thing to witness ...

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you saying the American Indian didn't often have a disadvantage in terms of firepower?

Depends what you mean by firepower?

Did they have cannon or Gatlin guns, no, but they certainly outgunned the US on a number of occasions. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, being one of the most famous.

Or how about the Nez pearce tribe with far less troops. They gave on a number of a occasions a complete thrashing to the US troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nez_Perce_War

And this is your own history

wow

By that part in history, most of the fighting was done.

It was just a mopping up operation.

It would have been much different if the Indians met the first Europeans, armed with firearms.

Wow!

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Depends what you mean by firepower?

Did they have cannon or Gatlin guns, no, but they certainly outgunned the US on a number of occasions. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, being one of the most famous.

Or how about the Nez pearce tribe with far less troops. They gave on a number of a occasions a complete thrashing to the US troops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nez_Perce_War

And this is your own history

wow

By that part in history, most of the fighting was done.

It was just a mopping up operation.

It would have been much different if the Indians met the first Europeans, armed with firearms.

Wow!

Yes wow again, because even before gun power, the indians still defeated on a number of occasions Europeans with simple bow power

What helped their cause was the introduction of horses

To your view, that most of the fighting was done, I suggest you go back to school and actually learn some actual American history

The wars I speak of, were many after the US civil war over a few decades. Many of which saw poorly ill trained immigrant troops get wiped out by different tribal people. Who's sole purpose was to be raised in war. So good was this system. That in the main only those between the ages of 20-40 fought as combat troops. It allowed for a highly effective fighting force. Its why the US army employed many within their armies as auxiliaries troops. I mean the US employed what Alexander the Great did. Divide and conquer. Use friendly indigeneous troops top suppliment their armies. Just as they did in the civil war and the war of indepence and the war against the French

Wow indeed. I mean your own state. Was created based off a Mexican ruler inviting people to migrate, only to ave them turn on him. Texans have to go down as the most turn coat of people in history. They were allowed to settle into lands, owned by Mexico and then had these devious yanks turn on them

I suggest, before you get into a debate with someone that actually knows your history better than you. That you actually read some history and save yourself some embarressment

Your view was based on guns and on native indians

Shall i educate you also on Zulus?

What is so sad about your poor ill knowledge over this all maddog. Is that in so many occasions it was the Indians that sought peace and compremise and yet. It was your ancestors that betrayed them at every turn. Only Obama, a person who i think has to go down as the worst President on foreign diplomacy and best dmoestically. Has been the only President. To attempt to right the many wrongs of he US Governement.

I mean, do you even know how many treaties that were formulated based on a lie by the US Governement. Only to push further and further native indians into smaller lands, where they could roam free. Every single time the US Governement broke these treaties. Murdered women and children and where the indians tribal groups trieds to compremise. Every time they were ethnically cleansed from the lands the lands they roamed in. Pushed back into small enclaves.

Yopu speak of gun power. Many people speak of the Battle of the Litle big horn. Custard, tried to use a tactic from before. To hit the indian village and take captive women and children. He split his troops into 3 groups and later his group into two. His troops had the springfield rifle. A single shot weapon and yet the indians had at least 200 repeating winchester rifles. Most of custers troops never stood  chance and why they were quickly defeated.

Like I say, you are what proves to me, the failed educational system in Texas. The fact I know more than you on your own history, is embarressing

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

By that part in history, most of the fighting was done.

It was just a mopping up operation.

It would have been much different if the Indians met the first Europeans, armed with firearms.

Wow!

Yes wow again, because even before gun power, the indians still defeated on a number of occasions Europeans with simple bow power

What helped their cause was the introduction of horses

To your view, that most of the fighting was done, I suggest you go back to school and actually learn some actual American history

The wars I speak of, were many after the US civil war over a few decades. Many of which saw poorly ill trained immigrant troops get wiped out by different tribal people. Who's sole purpose was to be raised in war. So good was this system. That in the main only those between the ages of 20-40 fought as combat troops. It allowed for a highly effective fighting force. Its why the US army employed many within their armies as auxiliaries troops. I mean the US employed what Alexander the Great did. Divide and conquer. Use friendly indigeneous troops top suppliment their armies. Just as they did in the civil war and the war of indepence and the war against the French

Wow indeed. I mean your own state. Was created based off a Mexican ruler inviting people to migrate, only to ave them turn on him. Texans have to go down as the most turn coat of people in history. They were allowed to settle into lands, owned by Mexico and then had these devious yanks turn on them

I suggest, before you get into a debate with someone that actually knows your history better than you. That you actually read some history and save yourself some embarressment

Your view was based on guns and on native indians

Shall i educate you also on Zulus?

Dude, Lets start at 1492, when Columbus landed. The Indians were outgunned for the most part.

No doubt the Comanches were some of the best horse soldiers around, but eventually even they were out gunned.

No one said they didn't win some and lose some.

But they lost more than they won.

If they had been developing weapons like the pesky immigrants were, they would have had better odds.

But if you want to type some more, do what makes you feel better.

phildidge wrote:What is so sad about your poor ill knowledge over this all maddog. Is that in so many occasions it was the Indians that sought peace and compremise and yet. It was your ancestors that betrayed them at every turn. Only Obama, a person who i think has to go down as the worst President on foreign diplomacy and best dmoestically. Has been the only President. To attempt to right the many wrongs of he US Governement.

I mean, do you even know how many treaties that were formulated based on a lie by the US Governement. Only to push further and further native indians into smaller lands, where they could roam free. Every single time the US Governement broke these treaties. Murdered women and children and where the indians tribal groups trieds to compremise. Every time they were ethnically cleansed from the lands the lands they roamed in. Pushed back into small enclaves.

Yopu speak of gun power. Many people speak of the Battle of the Litle big horn. Custard, tried to use a tactic from before. To hit the indian village and take captive women and children. He split his troops into 3 groups and later his group into two. His troops had the springfield rifle. A single shot weapon and yet the indians had at least 200 repeating winchester rifles. Most of custers troops never stood  chance and why they were quickly defeated.

Like I say, you are what proves to me, the failed educational system in Texas. The fact I know more than you on your own history, is embarressing

Are you still typing?

Talk about embarrassing.

American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.


What does the word "awhile" mean?

Does it suggest that at some point they realized that they needed better weapons?

Yes.

Did they get better weapons?

Yes.

Was it a century or two too late?

Yes.

Bye sweetheart.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Yes wow again, because even before gun power, the indians still defeated on a number of occasions Europeans with simple bow power

What helped their cause was the introduction of horses

To your view, that most of the fighting was done, I suggest you go back to school and actually learn some actual American history

The wars I speak of, were many after the US civil war over a few decades. Many of which saw poorly ill trained immigrant troops get wiped out by different tribal people. Who's sole purpose was to be raised in war. So good was this system. That in the main only those between the ages of 20-40 fought as combat troops. It allowed for a highly effective fighting force. Its why the US army employed many within their armies as auxiliaries troops. I mean the US employed what Alexander the Great did. Divide and conquer. Use friendly indigeneous troops top suppliment their armies. Just as they did in the civil war and the war of indepence and the war against the French

Wow indeed. I mean your own state. Was created based off a Mexican ruler inviting people to migrate, only to ave them turn on him. Texans have to go down as the most turn coat of people in history. They were allowed to settle into lands, owned by Mexico and then had these devious yanks turn on them

I suggest, before you get into a debate with someone that actually knows your history better than you. That you actually read some history and save yourself some embarressment

Your view was based on guns and on native indians

Shall i educate you also on Zulus?

Dude, Lets start at 1492, when Columbus landed.  The Indians were outgunned for the most part.

No doubt the Comanches were some of the best horse soldiers around, but eventually even they were out gunned.  

No one said they didn't win some and lose some.

But they lost more than they won.

If they had been developing weapons like the pesky immigrants were, they would have had better odds.

But if you want to type some more, do what makes you feel better.    

No they were not, as again Columbus never invaded anyone

Seriously, what kind of education are they teaching you in Texas?

Now if you had said the conquistadors, that would be different and they did conquer with fewer men, but they also had a great advantage

It6s called diseases that they brought with them

It was not really the gun that helped them actually conquer, but then as seen the education system in Texas is either clearly poor, or the reality is you were simple a dumb student

What mattered was they had horses and were heavily armoured. The Indians there did not use metal weapons and had little effect against their armour

This is why its so boring to educate people who are that ignorant on history

I love how you move the goal posts when I show up the fact you clearly are quite the thickie when it comes to history

Want to now invoke a new era again to back your poor arguments

So far, all of them have sunk faster than the HMS Hood

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:What is so sad about your poor ill knowledge over this all maddog. Is that in so many occasions it was the Indians that sought peace and compremise and yet. It was your ancestors that betrayed them at every turn. Only Obama, a person who i think has to go down as the worst President on foreign diplomacy and best dmoestically. Has been the only President. To attempt to right the many wrongs of he US Governement.

I mean, do you even know how many treaties that were formulated based on a lie by the US Governement. Only to push further and further native indians into smaller lands, where they could roam free. Every single time the US Governement broke these treaties. Murdered women and children and where the indians tribal groups trieds to compremise. Every time they were ethnically cleansed from the lands the lands they roamed in. Pushed back into small enclaves.

Yopu speak of gun power. Many people speak of the Battle of the Litle big horn. Custard, tried to use a tactic from before. To hit the indian village and take captive women and children. He split his troops into 3 groups and later his group into two. His troops had the springfield rifle. A single shot weapon and yet the indians had at least 200 repeating winchester rifles. Most of custers troops never stood  chance and why they were quickly defeated.

Like I say, you are what proves to me, the failed educational system in Texas. The fact I know more than you on your own history, is embarressing

Are you still typing?

Talk about embarrassing.

Oh dear, did I embarress you again with the fact I am that much more educated on your own history than you?

ha ha ha

Maddog wrote:American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.


What does the word "awhile" mean?

Does it suggest that at some point they realized that they needed better weapons?

Yes.

Did they get better weapons?

Yes.

Was it a century or two too late?

Yes.

Bye sweetheart.

Absurd reasoning

Who invented Guns?

Take your time

Was it the European invaders?

Nope

Do you see how your stupidty, is unfolding for all to be seen

Look mate, stop being a dumbass, get into nightschool and at least learn some real history

Throughout here, you have completely embarressed yourself

Good luck

I would place Maddog's knowledge of history down there with his understanding of both anything scientific, and economic theory and practice...

Non-existent on all counts..

A perfect breeding ground for many of his "Libertarian" beliefs.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I would place Maddog's knowledge of history down there with his understanding of both anything scientific,  and economic theory and practice...

Non-existent on all counts..

A perfect breeding ground for many of his "Libertarian" beliefs.

I happen to quite like him, but he dont half end up putting his foot in his mouth when he makes some really poor points

American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.


Still not wrong.

Maddog wrote:American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.


Still not wrong.

Oh come on mate, do you even know any of thier history or the many different tribes

Even without guns, they were greatly skilled for their archery and even won battles with such weapons. Their ability to fire off many arrows was incredible and its well documented.

Having guns thus clearly does not always mean certain victory. tactics is what matters.

The Indians were very good at using the feint tactic. That lured US soldiers out of their forts to devastating effects.

The reality is the US treated them appallingly. Countless treaties were agreed, only for them to be constantly broken by consequetive US governements

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.


Still not wrong.

Oh come on mate, do you even know any of thier history or the many different tribes

Even without guns, they were greatly skilled for their archery and even won battles with such weapons. Their ability to fire off many arrows was incredible and its well documented.

Having guns thus clearly does not always mean certain victory. tactics is what matters.

The Indians were very good at using the feint tactic. That lured US soldiers out of their forts to devastating effects.

The reality is the US treated them appallingly. Countless treaties were agreed, only for them to be constantly broken by consequetive US governements

American Indians were being wiped out for 300 years before they're even was a United States. They had a large technological disadvantage, and by the time that disadvantage was evened out, it was far too late. You're compressing about 400 years of European and Indian Warfare into about 40. You're dismissed.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Oh come on mate, do you even know any of thier history or the many different tribes

Even without guns, they were greatly skilled for their archery and even won battles with such weapons. Their ability to fire off many arrows was incredible and its well documented.

Having guns thus clearly does not always mean certain victory. tactics is what matters.

The Indians were very good at using the feint tactic. That lured US soldiers out of their forts to devastating effects.

The reality is the US treated them appallingly. Countless treaties were agreed, only for them to be constantly broken by consequetive US governements

American Indians were being wiped out for 300 years before they're even was a United States. They had a large technological disadvantage, and by the time that disadvantage was evened out, it was far too late. You're compressing about 400 years of European and Indian Warfare into about 40. You're dismissed.

Another fine example of whataboutism

How does any of the above excuse the wrongs done by the US Governements?

Not compressing this to 40 years and can go back to other years within this

You are simple making claims, and unable to back them up

I on the other hand have actually posted historical facts

Remember what your first claim was, to how this interaction started here?

Its simple you not admitting that you lack knowledge of previous history in US and South Africa

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

We use them for eating food.
Guns are unnecessary, they just are.

American Indians had that opinion for awhile. Probably too long in the opinion of many of their ancestors.

The descendants of Zulu Warriors may also share that opinion.          

As seen maddog, you made the above claim

It was emphatically incorrect

A man has appeared in court accused of fatally stabbing another man in a Tesco car park in Slough. Aqib Pervaiz, 26, of Slough, appeared at Reading magistrates court on Saturday charged with the murder of 24-year-old Nadeem Uddin Hameed Mohammed. 

Tommy Monk wrote:

A man has appeared in court accused of fatally stabbing another man in a Tesco car park in Slough. Aqib Pervaiz, 26, of Slough, appeared at Reading magistrates court on Saturday charged with the murder of 24-year-old Nadeem Uddin Hameed Mohammed. 

Thanks for the update, Tommy. Have you seen any info out there regarding a motive?