Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Donald Trump - Yes! - Sadiq Khan - No!

Bill Johnson
I expect Moustafa Bayoumi is referring to Sadiq Khan the very same man who in the past had connections with ‘other’s’ who had affiliations with Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al Nusra, and who foolishly said Londoners should not be alarmed by an increase at the sight of armed police on the streets following a terrorist attack.
Sadiq Khan in 2004 addressed an event which included Ibrahim Hewitt, and it’s clearly on record that Hewitt said adultery should be punished by stoning, Khan’s own brother-in-law preached against non-Muslims at an extremist rally in Trafalgar Square, and let’s not forget that Jeremy Corbyn said Ibrahim Hewitt was a good friend, my support goes to Donald Trump over Sadiq Khan any day.


Bill Johnson to probablyontopic 
I agree I never directly criticised Khan, and neither did I condemn him, and I am perfectly aware of the fact that I referred to those he associated with in the past and I have no need of you to remind me of that fact.
My opinions of Khan and some of his associates will of course be diametrically opposed to your’s I expect, so I will leave you to work out for yourself what those opinions I may or may not have.


probablyontopic to Bill Johnson
This is a bit of a non-answer.

Bill Johnson to probablyontopic 
I’m sorry you think that, but it’s the only one your going to get.


probablyontopic to Bill Johnson 
Cool. Sorry to see your attempt to tar-brush Khan failed so pathetically. Better luck next time.


Bill Johnson to Probablyontopic

I have no need to try and tarnish Khan, and neither did I try, I was just commenting on what is fact, and it’s all available via the media and other outlets for you to check for yourself.

ReinerNiemand to Bill Johnson
Vague opinions and insinuations without PROOF. 
You just couldn’t help but regurgiate this drivel?

Bill Johnson to ReinerNiemand

There is ample proof with regard’s to what I wrote in my original comment, maybe you should check.


probablyontopic to Bill Johnson
Cool. Sorry to see your attempt to tar-brush Khan failed so pathetically. Better luck next time.

ReinerNiemand to Bill Johnson
Vague opinions and insinuations without PROOF.
You just couldn't help but regurgiate this drivel?

Algreenie to Bill Johnson
Anyone with an ounce of insight knows that the "don't be alarmed comment" was in keeping with the 'keep calm and carry on' tradition and not a "terrorism doesn't matter" comment. This is the problem with taking things out of context. Many non-Muslim and conservative politicians have also said similar things about how we shouldn't let it affect our daily lives but when Khan said the same thing, wilful misinterpretations like yours emerged. It's nonsense.

Bill Johnson to Algreenie
Of course it’s a terrorism matter, but I do agree with you that far too many people have made similar comments, but it matters s not who say’s it, it still is a terrorism matter.

probablyontopic to Bill Johnson
You're not fooling anyone, you know. And it's rather sad that you lack the intellectual honesty to defend your position.

Bill Johnson to probablyontopic
Only a fool will deny facts, and it’s unfortunate that you seem to lack the intellectual honesty to accept facts for what they are.

ReinerNiemand to Bill Johnson
You inferr intent for Mr. Sadiq by what some others said, while I inferr intent from what Mr. Trump himself said.
Notice the difference?

Bill Johnson to ReinerNiemand
That’s your opinion, fair enough.

Probablyontopic to Bill Johnson
In what way do they slap me in the face

Bill Johnson to Probablyontopic
Figure it out for yourself.

ReinerNiemand to Bigrunner 
Why should I bother to state an opinion which is not mine? 

Bill Johnson to ReinerNiemand
Why should you bother?…Then don’t bother that’s your choice. But to continue…your opinion was created when you said I infer intent.


AlGreenie to Bill Johnson
Of course it’s a terrorism matter
I think you're a bit confused. I didn't say it wasn't a terrorism matter. I said that when you (and Trump and others) implied that Khan's statement about people not being alarmed meant that "terrorism doesn't matter", this was incorrect.
Khan was, in fact, saying - like everyone else does after terror attacks - that people should keep calm. It's a public order issue as much as anything else - if you see armed police, don't panic.
Hope that clears this up for you. You just confused my use of the verb "to matter" as the noun "matter".

Bill Johnson to AlGreenie
OK that’s fair enough, but I don’t think people are disturbed by armed police on the streets, almost everyone will feel more confident by their presence, but if a person finds themselves within close proximity of a terrorist attack and don’t feel panic and therefor calmly carries on when there is imminent danger then that person’s flight or fight instinct must be dysfunctional. 
I have to say it’s an idiotic remark to suggest we should keep calm when in such a terrible situation, but people do take it out of context, but that’s how it is.


ProbablyOnTopic to Bill Johnson
I continue to marvel at the depths of you intellectual cowardice 

Bill Johnson to ProbablyOnTopic
Then by all means…be my guest. 

AlGreenie to Bill Johnson

My advice to you, when youre wrong, just say youre wrong. 
A normal day in London is NOT encountering police in flak jackets and helmets with automatic weapons shouting orders. Its walking past fellow Londoners going about their business. 
This is precisely why Khan, London's mayor, thought it was fair do's to stand up and warn people that, AFTER a terrorist incident, not during, they might encounter these armed police and to keep calm if they do. Because the alternative is that people panic, panic is contagious and people can get hurt, even when there's no current threat. In that circumstance, it would be idiotic NOT to keep
calm. I'm not arguing with you about who Khan's associates might have been (though no hard link has been proven in the cases you mention). The only thing I'm outright objecting to in your post is the idea that there was anything wrong with Khan asking people, for the sake of public order, to keep calm. Because this echoes Trumps ridiculous attack on Khan where he took his comments completely out of context. The alternative you're suggesting is that people in London actually should panic in such a situation which can lead to all sorts of problems, including unnecessary fatalities. This is the reason why one of the first things police do when they arrive after an incident is to get people to move calmly away from an area. Its standard protocol and not idiotic in the least.   
  
Bill Johnson to AlGreenie  
I know perfectly well what it’s like in London, and I also know what it’s no longer like in certain areas. In any such critical terrorist situation people will panic some people panic at the slightest thing, and of course there’s no harm in asking people to keep calm, but it’s ridiculous to ask them if there is no immediate threat to life and limb.  The alternative that ‘some’ people may take is that when there is a threat of danger to one’s life one should also stay calm, it’s patent nonsense, if you have any sense you get out of the way of danger the quickest way possible, and here we are going on about a few words taken out of context, it’s not really worth the effort of discussion. I expect you’ve seen these people moving calmly away during such incidents, calmly and with disdain…yet at the same time running like the ‘Clappers’.


Crafter to Bill Johnson
Learn to write English correctly, you are border-line illiterate

Bill Johnson to Crafter
I see the bed-wetting Brigade are out in force once again.