Terrorist incident in Glasgow?

Reports of people covered in blood and being taken away on stretchers...


Police made people leave the store with their hands in the air...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/11962835/glasgow-police-stabbing-scotland/

Reports of several people dead... Police officer stabbed...

Was The Park Inn Hotel... Not a store...

3 were stabbed in the stairwell of the hotel...

Suspect was shot by police...

Many others reportedly stabbed and injured...

How is it terrorism? Or are you just identifying those involved as foreigners? Wouldn't you expect hotel guests to include foreigners?

What does a question mark at the end of a sentence indicate?

It indicates that it is questionable as to whether it is a terrorist incident or not... As it was too early to know when I created this thread...

Tommy Monk wrote:It indicates that it is questionable as to whether it is a terrorist incident or not... As it was too early to know when I created this thread...

Usually, to raise a question or a point there is some predicate suggestion...perhaps even evidence.  Are you saying there is none in this case?

Initial reports about the incident and the way the police were dealing with it, suggested it may have been a terrorist incident...


The BBC are reporting that this hotel was being used to house asylum seekers...

Tommy Monk wrote:Initial reports about the incident and the way the police were dealing with it, suggested it may have been a terrorist incident...

The BBC are reporting that this hotel was being used to house asylum seekers...

So, no facts to predicate the issue?  Instead, you take the rumors of the police, even while the world is learning how substantial is police lying.  Forgive us if we have doubts about this part.

Also, you interpose the suggestion that all asylum seekers are murderers?  Or, what was your point about asylum seekers?  Should they be kicked out?

Yes, kick 'em all out ,they are all potential killers ,they passed through several safe countries to get here. why ? because we are a soft touch, we provide Houses, Money ,free health care ,free tv's licence paid for .free phones with free calls, and a lot more. The houses the are given are decorated through out ,and all Furniture is provided, Before any one shouts lies, my Son-in law is responsible for providing all this ,he works for the Council who tell him what to provide !

nicko wrote:Yes, kick 'em all out ,they are all potential killers ,they passed through several safe countries to get here. why ? because we are a soft touch, we provide Houses, Money ,free health care ,free tv's licence paid for .free phones with free calls, and a lot more. The houses the are given are decorated through out ,and all Furniture is provided, Before any one shouts lies, my Son-in law is responsible for providing all this ,he works for the Council who tell him what to provide !

Broaden the picture a bit.  Didn't Britain create the alliances (under colonization) that brought them there?  If you want to go into their land and plunder the riches, should it not work the other way too?

Do you not believe in equal justice under the law?

Quill, no one alive today did anything of witch you are referring to, so why should we feel guilty. I'v heard this bullshit many times before.What do you think we should do about it ? My answer, ignore it ,it's over ,gone ,finished .

nicko wrote: Quill, no one alive today did anything of witch you are referring to, so why should we feel guilty. I'v heard this bullshit many times before.  What do you think we should do about it ? My answer, ignore it ,it's over ,gone ,finished .

It's really not a question of guilt.  It's a question of equity.

Are Brits not equal to their word?  You got your place under the sun by going into these third-world lands, turning them into colonies, and extracting all the goods, taking them home to enjoy.  In order to do this, you gave a promise, a contract to allow them membership in a Commonwealth and permit them entrance into the UK.  Now you want to renege.

It’s their right, but you want to deny them the benefit of their bargain.  Are contracts not good in the UK?  Did they breach the contract?  What is it that makes y'all go back on your word?

If you think about, it’s already their property right to be there…bought and sold. If some big corporation had bought your family farm from your great-grandparents, and now they were here to take possession, would you be able to say “…no one alive today did anything of which you are referring to”. Bullshit, man. They’d slap you with an Order to Vacate Premises. It's their property. Same with this situation. You have no recourse. Done deal. Go pound sand.

Heard it all before Quill, America did the same with the indigenous Indians ,you have nothing to boast about !What does "go pound Sand" mean ?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Yes, kick 'em all out ,they are all potential killers ,they passed through several safe countries to get here. why ? because we are a soft touch, we provide Houses, Money ,free health care ,free tv's licence paid for .free phones with free calls, and a lot more. The houses the are given are decorated through out ,and all Furniture is provided, Before any one shouts lies, my Son-in law is responsible for providing all this ,he works for the Council who tell him what to provide !

Broaden the picture a bit.  Didn't Britain create the alliances (under colonization) that brought them there?  If you want to go into their land and plunder the riches, should it not work the other way too?

Do you not believe in equal justice under the law?

Stop detailing every thread into bullshit quill... It's getting boring...!

It wasn't quite an asset stripping one way street as you seem to like to believe.
Even the Romans left some good legacies. If you want an example of asset stripping and devastation have a look at the Vikings, Normans, Babylonians and the Aztecs, check out the Zulus while your at it and these are just a few.

nicko wrote: Heard it all before Quill, America did the same with the indigenous Indians ,you have nothing to boast about !What does "go pound Sand" mean ?

I don't know what the whataboutism gains you, nick. Americans were once Brits, so are you admitting that the British don't live up to their word? You guys made a deal; you should live by it.

Pound sand = The expressions go pound sand and not enough sense to pound sand are American slang from the 19th century. It is a reference to menial, and often pointless, effort. Technically, it is an expression that often means, “go away” or “get outta here”, referring to a baseless argument. The idiom originated in American English. It is commonly said between/among lawyers, who use it to mean: you haven't got a claim.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Broaden the picture a bit.  Didn't Britain create the alliances (under colonization) that brought them there?  If you want to go into their land and plunder the riches, should it not work the other way too?

Do you not believe in equal justice under the law?

Stop detailing every thread into bullshit quill... It's getting boring...!

If you can't make a consistent argument, it says something about your point.

Plain and simple: the Brits who look-down-on/deny others they once took advantage of, are being dishonorable. You don't own up to your obligations.

There isn't anything here to be plundered, most of our precious metals were taken by the Romans all those years ago.

I like a good plunder !

nicko wrote: I like a good plunder !

That's the Norse genes in you.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Stop detailing every thread into bullshit quill... It's getting boring...!

If you can't make a consistent argument, it says something about your point.

Plain and simple: the Brits who look-down-on/deny others they once took advantage of, are being dishonorable. You don't own up to your obligations.

Yawn...

I'll take the win and go...

You didn't win anything you idiot...

Tommy Monk wrote:You didn't win anything you idiot...

Tommy, I know there is more to be said. But with that "yawn", you seem to have taken a break. Swim or sink, Bro.

You sank long ago when you started diverting this thread...

Tommy Monk wrote:You sank long ago when you started diverting this thread...

I'm not hearing anything of substance, tom. The topic of the thread is right above. Take a look and refresh your memory.

I don't need to refresh my memory... I started this thread... so I know exactly what it is about!


It is about a Muslim asylum seeker from Sudan, Badreddin Abadlla Adam, who stabbed six people, including a police officer, in a hotel in Glasgow that is used to house asylum seekers...

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't need to refresh my memory... I started this thread... so I know exactly what it is about!

It is about a Muslim asylum seeker from Sudan, Badreddin Abadlla Adam, who stabbed six people, including a police officer, in a hotel in Glasgow that is used to house asylum seekers...

Yet you call it terrorism in your title. How is it terrorism...as opposed to a guy going berserk? Maybe someone paid him? What is terrorism? What facts point to terrorism, according to your definition?

Discuss...

You use a lot of question marks in your above post...


Are you making statements of fact, or asking questions...?

Tommy Monk wrote:You use a lot of question marks in your above post...

Are you making statements of fact, or asking questions...?

All questions you must answer, in order to take you seriously.

Ah... So you were asking questions... Not making statements of fact...


As denoted by the question marks...


Do you see the question mark in the OP title...?


What do you think that question mark denotes...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ah... So you were asking questions... Not making statements of fact...

As denoted by the question marks...

Do you see the question mark in the OP title...?

What do you think that question mark denotes...?

I don't think it denotes anything.  It is intended to suggest, and hence provoke a lie.  Offering a falsehood in the form of a question is an old trick.  Trump does it all the time: Is Barack Obama a Muslim?  Good question.  I don't know, but he acts like it.

The real way to ask a question is to have some predicate facts beforehand, and then you have a legitimate basis for the inquiry.  If the Daily Mail announces that Melania Trump is a former prostitute, then one has a predicate for asking.  But each link in the chain must have a predicate, or it falls to that link to justify the asking.

You have no predicate facts for asking, so the question is mere chicanery.

Not at all... It was a question...and beating in mind it was only a few days ago where we had a terrorist attack in Reading involving a Muslim asylum seeker who stabbed a load of people...

Then this attack had a lot of similarities...

Tommy Monk wrote:Not at all... It was a question...and beating in mind it was only a few days ago where we had a terrorist attack in Reading involving a Muslim asylum seeker who stabbed a load of people...

Then this attack had a lot of similarities...

It was a groundless claim, put into interrogatory form.  There is no factual reason to ask such a question; so it originates as a construct in your mind.

As David Hume asserted, in order for there to be an association between two things, there must be a necessary connection.   The idea must have come from an impression, but we have no impression in the event itself. Therefore, the impression is one produced in the mind of the questioner.

Anyone can do it.  But it has no basis in rational empiricism.

It was a very reasonable question given the early reports of the incident, and given the other recent incident in Reading only a few days beforehand...

Tommy Monk wrote:It was a very reasonable question given the early reports of the incident, and given the other recent incident in Reading only a few days beforehand...

Yet, you avoid giving any facts or making an argument.  If you were confident in your predicate facts, you would share the details. If not, you are phrasing a statement, not a question.

If there’s a question mark at the end of a sentence it means it’s a question.

Example:

“Terrorist incident in Glasgow?”

Means “There was an incident in Glasgow, was it a terrorist?”

Jesus.

eddie wrote:If there’s a question mark at the end of a sentence it means it’s a question.

Example:

“Terrorist incident in Glasgow?”

Means “There was an incident in Glasgow, was it a terrorist?”

Jesus.

Yeah. How to make a fabrication look like truth. The question mark makes it all legitimate.

Like, for example: Ivana Trump...is she a high-class prostitute? I don't know...but I wonder if she doesn't run a whore house with Melania out of Trump Tower in Manhattan? They look like hookers. Both of them are tall, and one is even a blond. But, you be the judge.

'Dog' and 'bone' comes to mind here, tedious now.

Vintage wrote:'Dog' and 'bone' comes to mind here, tedious now.

Yes, quite.

'Dog' and 'bone' is apt for Ivana.

Sweet Jesus the fucktard can spew vomit all over a thread.

I think the best response to him is just "shut the fuck up you babbling fuckwad".

Maddog wrote:Sweet Jesus the fucktard can spew vomit all over a thread.

I think the best response to him is just "shut the fuck up you babbling fuckwad".  

Spoken like an ignorant, southern racist. Just the right amount of virulence and violence to shoot a negro, while sweet-talking the white gurls. Very prototypical.

shut the fuck up you babbling fuckwad

And who in the fuck says negro?

1964 called and they want their word back grandpa.

Maddog wrote:shut the fuck up you babbling fuckwad

Hey, I'm white. Any time you want to come up here with your gun, we've got decent law enforcement to take care of your sort. We've got plenty of room in San Quinton for you ignorant, sloppy crackers...and fat Bubba as well.

Maddog wrote:And who in the fuck says negro?

1964 called and they want their word back grandpa.  

Oh, I'm sure you would feel more at-home if I said, niggah. But northern decency forbids it around here.