Crosswords0 min ago
No Further Details Yet...
...but is this an accident or another incident?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jackdaw33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Holy crap. Some guy deliberately drives a van into a large group of people. Some young hotheads in that group get angry and want to set upon the guy. Others in that group defend the guy until the police show up. The guy is not injured but is this good enough for AOG? Oh no ... "They had forgot the rope in an attempt to lynch him"
Really, what tosh. Remember what this guy did, and what the outcome was for him, and how lucky he was to walk out of that situation unscathed - no matter who the group was.
Really, what tosh. Remember what this guy did, and what the outcome was for him, and how lucky he was to walk out of that situation unscathed - no matter who the group was.
-Talbot-
Can't win either way Talbot, if I had said differently, I would have been accused as Islamophobia, racism. or possessing a bigoted viewpoint.
From the other viewpoint I would have been accused of supporting mob violence and hangings.
But the person who accused you, with these words;
/// so your jumping in with an incorrect interpretation doesn't really add anything to the discussion. ///
should really learn to follow his own advice, because I was simply addressing mikey's incorrect version of events.
Can't win either way Talbot, if I had said differently, I would have been accused as Islamophobia, racism. or possessing a bigoted viewpoint.
From the other viewpoint I would have been accused of supporting mob violence and hangings.
But the person who accused you, with these words;
/// so your jumping in with an incorrect interpretation doesn't really add anything to the discussion. ///
should really learn to follow his own advice, because I was simply addressing mikey's incorrect version of events.
Ellipsis
This was a very angry mob, not your ordinary placid Englishmen, originally there was mention of a "lynch mob" but this has now been removed from all news outlets, for some strange reason.
And for your information in this country we don't tolerate mob rule or even kangaroo courts.
We don't know much about this perpetrator, so shall we just wait until he has been tried and convicted via English Law.
This was a very angry mob, not your ordinary placid Englishmen, originally there was mention of a "lynch mob" but this has now been removed from all news outlets, for some strange reason.
And for your information in this country we don't tolerate mob rule or even kangaroo courts.
We don't know much about this perpetrator, so shall we just wait until he has been tried and convicted via English Law.
Ellipsis/Islay, I didn’t see the original reports but I don’t think aog is alone in saying they have been removed or changed. According to an Imam from the mosque, the mob intended to cause the perpetrator injury. In fact that Imam is credited with saving the man’s life, so it’s clear his life was in peril. That is what happened. Denial doesn’t change it.
Who's denying anything?
You just have to look at the facts.
* A van was driven deliberately into a group of people
* The driver was wrestled to the ground and held there
* The police arrived some minutes later, and arrested the driver unharmed
Who committed a crime? The driver
Was there a lynch mob? No, the driver was not lynched or even harmed
Why is AOG seeking to focus attention on the victims rather than the perpetrator? And not on what the victims actually did - nothing except hold the van driver unharmed - but what in his imagination they might have done. A pathetic attempt to plant false thoughts into people's heads. AOG's version of events: ordinary placid Englishman accidentally hires van and drives 187 miles before ploughing van into a an already-seething lynch mob, lucky to escape with life.
Look at the facts! I think if I had been out with a mixed group of Englishmen in the early hours of a summer's night, and somebody had deliberately driven a van into us, that someone would have been very lucky to escape completely unharmed. The offender here was the driver, and that's it.
You just have to look at the facts.
* A van was driven deliberately into a group of people
* The driver was wrestled to the ground and held there
* The police arrived some minutes later, and arrested the driver unharmed
Who committed a crime? The driver
Was there a lynch mob? No, the driver was not lynched or even harmed
Why is AOG seeking to focus attention on the victims rather than the perpetrator? And not on what the victims actually did - nothing except hold the van driver unharmed - but what in his imagination they might have done. A pathetic attempt to plant false thoughts into people's heads. AOG's version of events: ordinary placid Englishman accidentally hires van and drives 187 miles before ploughing van into a an already-seething lynch mob, lucky to escape with life.
Look at the facts! I think if I had been out with a mixed group of Englishmen in the early hours of a summer's night, and somebody had deliberately driven a van into us, that someone would have been very lucky to escape completely unharmed. The offender here was the driver, and that's it.
> But only because the Imam and a few others protected him.
I don't know what point you are trying to make. They listened to the Imam and a few others. That's good, isn't it?
My point is that if you drove a van on purpose into any large group of people, you might expect some of that group to get angry about it - whether they were your ordinary placid Englishmen, or anybody else - and you should consider yourself very lucky indeed, and the group you drove into (as a whole) quite unusually forgiving, if you were to come out of it unharmed. If anything, that group is to be commended - not various hotheads within it picked out when, ultimately, they did nothing in the face of considerable provocation and when they could easily have chosen to ignore the pleas of the cooler heads among the group and inflicted severe harm and revenge (in the correct sense of the word) on the driver.
As for why AOG is choosing to find fault in the victims of this crime, rather than the perpetrator, well ...
I don't know what point you are trying to make. They listened to the Imam and a few others. That's good, isn't it?
My point is that if you drove a van on purpose into any large group of people, you might expect some of that group to get angry about it - whether they were your ordinary placid Englishmen, or anybody else - and you should consider yourself very lucky indeed, and the group you drove into (as a whole) quite unusually forgiving, if you were to come out of it unharmed. If anything, that group is to be commended - not various hotheads within it picked out when, ultimately, they did nothing in the face of considerable provocation and when they could easily have chosen to ignore the pleas of the cooler heads among the group and inflicted severe harm and revenge (in the correct sense of the word) on the driver.
As for why AOG is choosing to find fault in the victims of this crime, rather than the perpetrator, well ...
anneasquith, do try to keep up. The driver wasn’t injured. The Imam has been credited with protecting him and saving his life.
Ellipsis, I‘ve agreed with you that in a similar situation the perpetrator would be in danger of attack, but the point I’m making is that had it not been for the Imam the group would have attacked the driver. They were not squeaky clean and just restraining the man until the police came as the media would have had us believe. As for aog blaming the victims rather than the perpetrator, it seems to me that you and he are as biased as one another. He wants to blame the victims - you want to justify the mob attempting to attack the driver. Me? I’m going to bed. Night night.
Ellipsis, I‘ve agreed with you that in a similar situation the perpetrator would be in danger of attack, but the point I’m making is that had it not been for the Imam the group would have attacked the driver. They were not squeaky clean and just restraining the man until the police came as the media would have had us believe. As for aog blaming the victims rather than the perpetrator, it seems to me that you and he are as biased as one another. He wants to blame the victims - you want to justify the mob attempting to attack the driver. Me? I’m going to bed. Night night.
> it seems to me that you and he are as biased as one another
Again, not sure what point you are trying to make here. Is it not normal to take the side of the victim of a crime? For example, I would happily take the side of Lee Rigby, Saffie Roussos or Keith Palmer against their attackers ... so why would I not take the side of the victims in this case? Whereas AOG would also presumably take the side of Lee Rigby, Saffie Roussos or Keith Palmer, but apparently not the victims in this case ... showing where his bias truly lays. Not for the victims, but against all Muslims whether they are perpetrators or victims.
Again, not sure what point you are trying to make here. Is it not normal to take the side of the victim of a crime? For example, I would happily take the side of Lee Rigby, Saffie Roussos or Keith Palmer against their attackers ... so why would I not take the side of the victims in this case? Whereas AOG would also presumably take the side of Lee Rigby, Saffie Roussos or Keith Palmer, but apparently not the victims in this case ... showing where his bias truly lays. Not for the victims, but against all Muslims whether they are perpetrators or victims.
Ellipsis, I agree it is quite bizarre to side with the perpetrator but the refusal to acknowledge the enormity of the threat that Islam presents to this country is equally bizarre – and that’s what I see here day after day. I’m guessing that a number of the people attending that mosque, and others, harbour sympathies with Islamic extremism – in fact I’d be willing to bet on it – and so the failure to recognise that they’re not all as friendly towards the rest of us as many would have us believe is self-destructive – and that concerns me far more than aog’s nonsense.
> the refusal to acknowledge the enormity of the threat that Islam presents to this country is equally bizarre
There's a time and a place to acknowledge the threat that Islamists present to this country, and I'll do so. The danger of doing it on a thread that is about a group of Muslims being indiscriminately ploughed into in a van is that it creates an impression of supporting or justifying the actions of that van driver, which are just not supportable or justifiable - he is as bad as the Nice or Berlin attackers, for example.
The impression is strengthened when, as in the case of AOG, the victims are then painted as somehow deserving of their fate.
We have to abhor all acts like this, whoever the perpetrators, whoever the victims.
There's a time and a place to acknowledge the threat that Islamists present to this country, and I'll do so. The danger of doing it on a thread that is about a group of Muslims being indiscriminately ploughed into in a van is that it creates an impression of supporting or justifying the actions of that van driver, which are just not supportable or justifiable - he is as bad as the Nice or Berlin attackers, for example.
The impression is strengthened when, as in the case of AOG, the victims are then painted as somehow deserving of their fate.
We have to abhor all acts like this, whoever the perpetrators, whoever the victims.
