Incident at London Bridge, Why do Abbott and co insist on calling them "Incidents" Options

[Turin Machine]

*coughs* Daily Mail

Problems? Or a bit of left wing elitist snobbery?

[newres]

Problems? Or a bit of left wing elitist snobbery?

Plagiarism.

"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own"

[TallDarkAndHands...]

And Labour play the race card! (well, it is Labour)

"Labour supporters today dismissed criticism of Diane Abbott over her shambolic media performances as down to 'racist and sexist abuse'.

Singer Lily Allen hit out after the shadow home secretary was ridiculed for another car crash interview.

Ms Abbott was left floundering on Sky News when she was asked to discuss the Harris Report, released last October, which made several recommendations on beefing up security in the capital.

But after being questioned by Dermot Murnaghan on specific aspects of the report a desperate Ms Abbott was unable to come up with answers and even had to be corrected by the interviewer."

Heres a tip LILY, Its not because its racist, and its not because its sexist, ITS because she can't hack it!! Supposed to be shadow Home Secretary for Gods sake. Get a spine.

Lillies as mad as a box of frogs. Years of drugs and drink have addled her brain. If you read her twitter time line she pretty much thinks all white men are rapists... And she fawns over Abbott and Corbyn like a schoolgirl with a crush on a pop star. Her and tax evading Lineker are champagne socialists. Not living in the real world.

[On the edge]

Plagiarism.

"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own"

Aaah Newres, we hadn't spotted the tiny speech marks before and after the text in question. Apparently that makes it legit, a bit like saying you never took drugs because you didn't inhale. Original thought from Je Suis? Never; there's a better chance of getting a coherent answer from Ms Abbott.

[Turin Machine]

Plagiarism.

"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own"

Which is why he put the post in quotes, yes? To signify it was from somewhere else? Yes? Understand?

[On the edge]

Which is why he put the post in quotes, yes? To signify it was from somewhere else? Yes? Understand?

We've done that one TM, do keep up at the back!

[Turin Machine]

We've done that one TM, do keep up at the back!

Will do Captain my Captain.

[Simon Kirby]

Will do Captain my Captain.

You passing Walt Whitman's work off as your own now?

[Turin Machine]

You passing Walt Whitman's work off as your own now?

Merely paying homage.

[newres]

Aaah Newres, we hadn't spotted the tiny speech marks before and after the text in question. Apparently that makes it legit, a bit like saying you never took drugs because you didn't inhale. Original thought from Je Suis? Never; there's a better chance of getting a coherent answer from Ms Abbott.

Pretty sure they weren't there earlier.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Pretty sure they weren't there earlier.

[je suis Charlie]

Yup, they were. Kinda shows you don't even read the posts before jumping on with both feet.

[newres]

Yup, they were. Kinda shows you don't even read the posts before jumping on with both feet.

I did actually double check before I posted, but perhaps I need new glasses.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I did actually double check before I posted, but perhaps I need new glasses.

Yep. Difficult to see things clearly through red filters.

[newres]

Yep. Difficult to see things clearly through red filters.

I don't think Simon saw them either else he wouldn't have made his post.

[je suis Charlie]

Kinda adds substance to TDH's post then. 🖕

[On the edge]

For decades we suffered, often grievously, at the hands of the IRA. Our response, was hard; civilian rights curtailed and invoking heavy military and police action. Still the carnage went on. Alongside, some tried to parly, Ken Livingstone was roundly castigated for that. The only solution seemed ever harder physical force. Then, the break came, we did talk and talk and a peace, which still just about holds was established. Yes, it meant talking to odious people and doing things we didn't like; such is the nature of negotiation. Yet still the critics, fanned by the red topped press, try to keep the battle alive. Carping on about past wrongs and hurts, not letting go.

Why is it so wrong to seek peace, what at do these people really want?

[blackdog]

Remind me, did we have Muslim terrorists in the west before the Gulf wars?

Of course we did - the Gulf wars were just a recent a escalation by the West - like most previous attempts to stamp out terrorism by sending in the army the main result has been to increase terrorism.

[je suis Charlie]

It would be a nice idea wouldn't it, an end to war, the end of global hunger, however, so many people have taken the view that if we change our ways, become somehow subservient to Daesh that they will stop attacking Britain. Let's, for a moment review the aims of Daesh and what it is they want.

Daesh makes no secret of its ultimate ambition: A global caliphate secured through a global war. To that end it speaks of "remaining and expanding" its existing hold over much of Iraq and Syria. It aims to replace existing, man-made borders with its own, to overcome what it sees as Shiite territory that has emerged across the Middle East, to take its war, Islam's holy war, (jihad) to Europe and America (the west or 'the great Satan) and ultimately to lead Muslims toward an apocalyptic battle against the "disbelievers." (That's us by the way)

Daesh frequently uses its own online magazine called Dabiq to set out its vision of the future. The name of this so called 'magazine' is chosen carefully, Dabiq is a town in northern Syria currently held by Daesh where, according to Islamic prophecy, the armies of Rome will mass to meet the armies of Islam and presumably be wiped out (no-one likes a loser) Prophecy is critical to Daesh which accepts the word of the Prophet and the hadith, or sayings, attributed to him literally absolutely and without question. Prophecy provides Daesh with the glue of certainty. And according to those prophecies, the Islamic armies will ultimately conquer Jerusalem and Rome.

The revival of the so called caliphate is the launching pad for a global battlefield. No caliph can govern without pursuing offensive jihad, and that jihad will continue, as they say, until "the shade of the blessed flag will expand until it covers all eastern and western extents of the earth.

After all this, and by the way they promise that anyone calling it Daesh will die after having their tongue torn from their living body, so boy! Am I in trouble! After this is it reasonable, likely or even believable that they are going to say "those evil western dogs in England sat they're sorry, let's all go back home"? Personally, I don't think so.

And yes, some of this post I had to research from online sources, and no, not from the Phail.

[On the edge]

Yes, Je Suise as Teddy Rooseevelt once said, talk softly but carry a big stick. Does seem to work. Nevertheless, thanks to Mrs May and her chums, our navy and army have been so stripped of resource that they are almost ineffective and of course, under get patronage, our Police service similarly. Ironically, the only thing we have left is talk.

Do you really think someone who cares more about Party policy than national defence is really the right person to lead us in this fight?