Prison officers lucky to be alive after terror attack at high-security jail, officials say

Prison officers were lucky to escape with their lives during a suspected terror attack in a high-security prison, officials have said.

Five members of staff at HMP Whitemoor were stabbed by two inmates who were wearing fake suicide vests on Thursday morning.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prison-officer-hmp-whitemoor-prison-suicide-terror-brusthom-ziamani-a9278076.html

Independent wrote:Police treating stabbing at high-security HMP Whitemoor as a terror attack

I don't see any real evidence. Blacks are always disproportionately represented in prison populations. Fake suicide vests are the weapon of choice these days. He probably saw it on TV. Wasn't there one on London Bridge recently?

The article doesn't mention anything else.

He was in prison for terrorism already...

Tommy Monk wrote:

He was in prison for terrorism already...

So? I mean, if he violated a code by pissing on a wall, would it be called: pissing for terrorism? Is everything done subsequently, for terrorism?

That's not evidence.

"That's not evidence"What the fucks wrong with you Quill , they stabbed the officer, what more evidence do you need ? Your making excuses for Terrorists---------again !

But he didn't piss up a wall... Two of them carried out a preplanned violent attack on prison guards, with bladed weapons that they had crafted and while wearing fake suicide bomb vests...

nicko wrote:   "That's not evidence"What the fucks wrong with you Quill , they stabbed the officer, what more evidence do you need ? Your making excuses for Terrorists---------again !

Lot's of people have been stabbed, going back to the beginning. Yet 'terrorism' is a relatively recent term. Are we just heaping on charges, thus watering down the allegation? Or, do we want to reserve it for situations in which the terrorism is real.

Keep in mind, that if we water it down, it won't have much meaning down the road. It may even backfire, as it did with the term nigah. That term, in the south, used to mean guilty, no questions asked. Then it evolved into a term to mean framed and railroaded.

Is that what you want?

nicko wrote:   "That's not evidence"What the fucks wrong with you Quill , they stabbed the officer, what more evidence do you need ? Your making excuses for Terrorists---------again !

Maybe they stabbed themselves?

Not much point in discussing this then is there, its all getting a bit ridiculous.

The op is clear in what happened...

Tommy Monk wrote:


The op is clear in what happened...

No, it isn't. That's the point. The evidence indicates he stabbed someone. The evidence does not indicate it was terrorism.

Vintage wrote:Not much point in discussing this then is there, its all getting a bit ridiculous.  

That seems to happen a lot around here.

Quill is supposed to be a Lawyer, he knows fuck all about Law, just what he reads in Books ,and tries to kid us with long winded "Lawyer Speak" !

nicko wrote:Quill is supposed to be a Lawyer, he knows fuck all about Law, just what he reads in Books ,and tries to kid us with long winded "Lawyer Speak"  !

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers". -- Socrates

The authorities are considering it to be terrorism... Which they wouldn't be doing if it wasn't...

Tommy Monk wrote:The authorities are considering it to be terrorism... Which they wouldn't be doing if it wasn't...

Haha...the authorities. I love that term.  "The authorities" in Anglo-American law are no more than one side of the debate.  "The authorities" need to come forth with evidence that this was terrorism.  Otherwise, "the authorities" are no more than a hollow log.

Tommy Monk wrote:The authorities are considering it to be terrorism... Which they wouldn't be doing if it wasn't...

Because the authorities are actually sleeper cells of ISIS.

Please try to keep up.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The authorities are considering it to be terrorism... Which they wouldn't be doing if it wasn't...

Because the authorities are actually sleeper cells of ISIS.

Please try to keep up.

Or Russia and the Saudis.

Quill is quite mad...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill is quite mad...

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers". -- Socrates

When somebody talks utter madness, they will be considered as being quite mad...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill is quite mad...

Walter Mitty was sane, just a dreamer.

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill is quite mad...

did you honestly expect a sensible answer from quill?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill is quite mad...

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers". -- Socrates

so cute that you would consider it a debate

Tommy Monk wrote:When somebody talks utter madness, they will be considered as being quite mad...

Maddog wrote:Walter Mitty was sane, just a dreamer.

gelico wrote:did you honestly expect a sensible answer from quill?

Here's a sensible answer: where is the evidence that it was terrorism? All of you are evading that, the most relevant question.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:When somebody talks utter madness, they will be considered as being quite mad...

Maddog wrote:Walter Mitty was sane, just a dreamer.

gelico wrote:did you honestly expect a sensible answer from quill?

Here's a sensible answer: where is the evidence that it was terrorism?  All of you are evading that, the most relevant question.

if you can't access the link to read the article you should have said


One of the suspects is understood to be Brusthom Ziamani, a member of Anjem Choudary’s al-Muhajiroun (ALM) Islamist network who was jailed for planning a terror attack in 2015.


Ziamani, now 24, had been jailed for plotting to behead a British soldier, after being found carrying a hammer and 12-inch knife wrapped in a black flag that has been used by al-Qaeda.

His trial heard that he converted to Islam in 2014 and had become homeless, falling into the hands ALM members who gave him money, clothes and accommodation.

Ziamani was photographed at ALM demonstrations and posted comments on Facebook claiming that he was “willing to die in the cause of Allah”.

The second suspect in the attack is another Muslim convert who had been jailed for a violent offence, the BBC reported.

He had researched the location of army cadet bases in London, shown his ex-girlfriend weapons, described fusilier Lee Rigby’s killer as a “legend”.





There is more but I think that's kind of enough, don't you?

Doubt it, there's every possibility Quill will find an excuse for it all. It amazes me but it is on the other hand quite funny the out there excuses he comes up.

gelico wrote:if you can't access the link to read the article you should have said

I read the article, gels.  Just like you, I am no wiser for having done so.  There is no evidence of terrorism and you can't point to any either.

Vintage wrote:Doubt it, there's every possibility Quill will find an excuse for it all. It amazes me but it is on the other hand quite funny the out there excuses he comes up.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers". -- Socrates

Join the group, vintage. Yet another one who cannot find the evidence of terrorism.

Really can't be bothered anymore. This used to be the pace to have a good discussion, now its lawyer speak and fantasy, no real opinions anymore. Such a shame.

Vintage wrote:Really can't be bothered anymore. This used to be the pace to have a good discussion,  now its lawyer speak and fantasy, no real opinions anymore. Such a shame.

Then go.  You are obviously not equipped for the discussion.  Conclusive opinions require evidence, and you end up resenting your inadequacies, rather than providing the evidence.

Time to step aside.  Let others more capable take up the discussion.  To sustain a charge of terrorism you need evidence of terrorism.  If you have none, you have no token to enter the discussion.

Vintage is right, I have said before you use "lawyerspeak",it's just a load of babble that in the end means nothing. Another poster chased off by a self important nobody who cant see "the wood for the Tree's !

The authorities are considering it as terrorism so there must be evidence...

This is not a court of law, evidence as such, isn't a requirement for someone to express an opinion on something. Its hardly suprising so many have left, its supposed to be a discussion forum, not Crown Court. Get over yourself Quill, I think you are a fraud from start to finish.

Tommy Monk wrote:The authorities are considering it as terrorism so there must be evidence...

Yet, you don't know and you are not going to ask.

Haha...with "vigilant" citizens like you, it's a perfect opportunity for a totalitarian take-over.

Quill... If a man punches another man in the face... You would be trying to argue that the man with the damaged face actually ran into the other mans fist...!!!


Especially if the puncher was black or Muslim and the victim was white...

+1

Vintage wrote:This is not a court of law, evidence as such, isn't a requirement for someone to express an opinion on something. Its hardly suprising so many have left, its supposed to be a discussion forum, not Crown Court. Get over yourself Quill, I think you are a fraud from start to finish.

Oh really? What an incredible statement. The Rules of Evidence, and indeed all rules of court are put into place to assure verification, and prevent people like you from running amuck. Now, it seems that running amuck is your cause celebre.

It's supposed to be a discussion forum, not a regression to 'Nazis accusation without justice' forum. You remind me of Senator Roman Hurska, who once argued: "Even mediocracy should be represented."

You argue for lowering the standards for Newsfix over, oh say, an honest forum? Don't you realize that is an insult to Newsfix and Ben's efforts. Championing mediocracy—or in the case of your argument, even dishonesty (“opinion” over verification)—is to deny the aim of debate: to produce honesty, truth and ultimately greater accountability.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill... If a man punches another man in the face... You would be trying to argue that the man with the damaged face actually ran into the other mans fist...!!!

Especially if the puncher was black or Muslim and the victim was white...

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist, was very popular in a critical sense.

Known to most as simply Bertrand Russell, he once wrote a book: Unpopular Essays.  It is a “volume of essays concerned to combat, in one way or another, the growth of dogmatism, whether of the Left or of the Right, which has hitherto characterized…the 20th-century.”  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/182354.Unpopular_Essays

I am honored to be associated with Mr. Russell.  Yes, I too write unpopular essays.  That is, as opposed to cheer-leading essays.  I don't see the point of the latter; if everyone is in favor of something, what are you trying to accomplish...simply, joining in?  I have no such ego need.

The need that I do have is a desire to point out flaws in reasoning, and sometimes facts.  Yep, I usually run counter to the OP ... or, to opinions that arise in the debate.  But isn't that the point of debate?  We can engage in consensus-building elsewhere.  A forum designed for debate, is one that highlights differences.

As to those that refocus the argument from the 'message' to the 'messenger', I look upon them as in need of help.  It's just another flaw to point out.

Yawn...

Tommy Monk wrote:Yawn...

If one day it is determined that democracy doesn't work, it will be because of 'attention-deficit disorder'.

You should know all about that ,you've had it for years !

nicko wrote: You should know all about that ,you've had it for years !

Being in a different world than you, is a distinction of pride. Conservatism is just clinging to the evils of yesterday, scared of letting go. I am committed to reason and justice, and new beginnings to accomplish this.

Looking at your posts, your reasoning went out of the window Months ago !

nicko wrote: Looking at your posts, your reasoning went out of the window Months ago !

You don't think evidence is particularly useful in criminal law? Figures...

The evidence was a Knife sticking out of a mans back, is that not enough ?

nicko wrote: The evidence was a Knife sticking out of a mans back, is that not enough ?

Could have been self inflicted.

Maybe he reversed into it...!?

nicko wrote: The evidence was a Knife sticking out of a mans back, is that not enough ?

Ahah...the old red herring trick.  The evidence I am talking about is evidence that it was terrorism.  You have changed the subject to evidence that he was killed.  I don't argue that. Here's what my argument is:

Original Quill wrote:Lot's of people have been stabbed, going back to the beginning. Yet 'terrorism' is a relatively recent term. Are we just heaping on charges, thus watering down the allegation? Or, do we want to reserve it for situations in which the terrorism is real.

If you want to discuss the terrorism angle, we can do that.  If not, I've got no dog in the fight.  I'll check back later in the day to see if you want to continue the original debate.

Nobody was killed... So it just shows how much you really look at the facts...