"Vigil held for girl after Huddersfield bus stop crash" Accident? Or terrorism? These incidents are becoming a bit too commonplace for my liking. I'll bet on the latter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-42660011
What are you basing that on? Sadly there are hundreds of fatal traffic accidents every year but thankfully only a couple of terrorist attacks. The former usually don’t get much media coverage though (unless they’ve got hold of a decent picture of an attractive young victim). Given there’s nothing in any of the reporting even raising the idea and plenty of elements that aren’t common in terrorist attacks (single collision and nothing afterwards, an older driver released without charge), it doesn’t seem rational to jump to that conclusion.
I don't base my suspicion on what was reported, rather upon what wasn't? Too much space given over for 'tributes' against too little space for details of the incident itself.
So the hundreds of fatal car accidents that receive little or no media coverage are all probably terrorism too? What about the shootings, stabbings and assaults? All thefts are probably to fund terrorism? Every immigrant has come here to kill us all? And I’m probably a terrorist support trying to cover it all up?
But even you have to recognise the exponential increase in all of those crimes? You know - road traffic 'accidents' where for no apparent reason cars suddenly increase speed and career into crowded pedestrian walkways, and suddenly crash into bus stops (where it just so happen a bunch of beautiful young females are waiting for their bus?). And 'spontaneous' outbreaks of fires in multi-storey car parks and newly-refurbished railways stations. Young lads walking home suddenly, and again for no apparent reason, are attacked from behind and stabbed to death? Stuff like that?? Wake up and smell it HJ???
And you are trying to make a terrorist incident out of it, with no justification other than your own stinking fear. Do not pretend you give a toss about those who died.
Sure, but the recent increase has been from zero to a handful. Car crashes which aren't acts of terrorism are still much more common so presuming a car crash is terrorism with no specific evidence is totally irrational. I also don't know where you're getting your information about the specifics of the crash. How do you know the car "suddenly increased speed", that the pavement was "crowded" or, frankly, that all of the pedestrians were "beautiful young females"? The same thing applies to assaults and arson too. There are indeed some terrorist related ones and more than years past but the number that aren't terrorism related will be much, much larger so there is no justification in assuming all of them (or all of the subset you ever hear about) are likely acts of terrorism. You don't need to see terrorists in ever shadow to recognise the increasing problem and deal with it. Indeed, this kind of over-reaction and flawed assumptions risk making dealing with actual terrorism more difficult.
Well the one involved in the Westminster Bridge attack must have, and to judge by the number of casualties the pavement was most definitely 'crowded', or the victims would have had time to get out of the way? In fact one of them was thrown over the parapet into the river by the impact. The varying estimates of the speed of the car were between 50 and 60 mph. "Five people have died, with 50 injured - some critically - in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/westminster-terror-attack-everything-know-far/ And the girls at the bus stop were, from what I read in the press, were very attractive. Unless I'm mistaken I believe the attacker in that incident was a woman-hating wacko who had previously driven by, then returned to carry out the atrocity. Oh, and not necessarily a terrorist - it could have been an Englishman born and bred; the fact is that I don't know. Female-hating wackos come in all nationalities. PS I won't be responding any further because as you know full well, all your 'what ifs' and 'supposing this' and 'supposing that' hypotheses get on my nerves.
Stop doing it then. You're basically saying "What if this was a terrorist attack?". If your posts continue to get the kind of response you don't like, maybe you should consider the possibility the cause is the nature of your posts.
Fair point. But you must admit nearly all of your responses are negative, and to repeatedly see responses which give 'a hundred' possible alternative reasons for a given scenario become a bit irritating is all. But I'll try to live with it.
I don’t see a lot of point responding to posts I agree with and I expect disagreement with my posts in return. This is a debate forum so if you post something you have to expect challenge and questioning (which is at least better than the alternative raw anger and insults). If you’re hoping for a run of “Oh you’re right on the ball there, isn’t this Cerberus bloke smart?” replies though, you’re in the wrong place (as in “the internet”).
Well I'll readily admit to not being the sharpest knife in the block, but I'm up there with the best of 'em. Almost 2k Likes is proof of that?
