No I didn’t, again the context was an assumption that this was a gang related incident...
You can make stuff up if you like and just rant etc... but you’re being dumb.
Several people shot dead in Hanau, near Frankfurt in Germany
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
No I didn’t, again the context was an assumption that this was a gang related incident...
You can make stuff up if you like and just rant etc... but you’re being dumb.
No it wasn't. The context was you advocating a points based immigration system to prevent undesirables to come through. You were questioned about why you thought they were undesirables and said you didn't think they were going to be doctors, engineers etc. The link to gangs was tenuous at best at that point.
In fact the starting point was just a general point about Merkel letting in mass immigration, it didn't even involve gangs.
Yes, I may have gone back through the quotation history
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
That was a comment in reply to a flippant/provocative comment from Greebo directed at Rob where he asked a question about whether immigrants in London ought to be exterminated. Again look at the context and read the post. Hint - there was a news story yesterday about points based migration!
That was in reference to people in Hanau and the context was under the assumption that this was a gang shooting, which is what various people in the thread had just posted about.
In fact the starting point was just a general point about Merkel letting in mass immigration, it didn't even involve gangs.
Yes, I may have gone back through the quotation history
Not far enough then clearly, you've mixed up a comment about points based migration in London with a comment that people killed in an assumed gang related shooting probably were undesirables. As for didn't even involve gangs - Turkish gangs was my first assumption for these attacks given what had been reported as it was for others on the first page of this thread:
And you're also deliberately ignoring on page 2 an update after it became apparent it wasn't gang related
So I'm not sure on what basis you can claim that the context of the comments weren't in relation to tit seemingly being a gang shooting.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
@dowie you seem remarkably defensive here - is this confession time?
The post that started all this, number 12 in this thread, no reference to gangs (apologies for formatting, trying to differentiate between your post and other posts by you/others):
"This was the horrible backlash that was bound to happen when you systemically try to replace your entire population with immigration. This ******* was a twisted psycho but Merkle also has blood on her hands"
Absolutely there were references to gang behaviour. But in the context of this discussion (and what started it) there is no obvious inclusion of gangs. I say this as someone outside of your discussion, the context absolutely does not seem to involve gangs except where you've brought it in. Yes, there are gang themes in this thread, but surely I don't need to state that multiple discussion lines are occurring. You may well think that the discussion includes gang themes, but this line of discussion doesn't read this way. It absolutely reads that you are applying the no doctors/engineers etc. thinking to all immigrants.
I don't doubt you have intended your side to include gang themes, but as someone who appreciates "pedanticness" in conversation lines, I'm surprised you haven't spotted the fact you seem to be mixing up discussions.
Happily enough I went through each quoted post to the one before. Post 12 started this train. I suggest you double check. Follow the arrows.
I was also fully aware your first post included the suspicion of gangs. As above, I think you're the one mixing up comments and I'm trying to highlight that to you before this ends up in an endless argument !
No it doesn't - you're conflating my comments and those of another member and comments re: London with comments re: this shooting in the context of a thread where most assumed it was gang related... at the time I posted that was the assumption - you have to completely ignore the whole first page of the thread to read it like that. I get how you might read it like that if you start a day later and go backwards through the quotes (as I assume you have done) but that's why I've pointed out both the context and the post on page 2.
Happily enough I went through each quoted post to the one before. Post 12 started this train. I suggest you double check. Follow the arrows.
I was also fully aware your first post included the suspicion of gangs. As above, I think you're the one mixing up comments and I'm trying to highlight that to you before this ends up in an endless argument !
I have, the context is the thread itself too and the post you seem to have ignored on page 2 where I've both made reference to gangs and changed my view in light of this seemingly not being gang related - I note you again ignore it in your most recent post despite it being quoted for you.
You can pretend that I mean something else etc.. if you like but then you have to selectively ignore things I've posted, the overall context and what I'm literally telling you my comments are in relation to. If you want to ignore all that and pretend I have some different views then go ahead but it's rather silly.
Thats the issue I think - you've worked backwards a day later by following the quotes but that ignores that this post was made at the time when various thread contributors were under the assumption it was gang related - that's the context... sure the post doesn't specifically mention gangs (they'd already been mention previous by me and others) - but you could also take note of the follow up post where I change the view too as a result of it apparently not being gang relates.
No - I'm just here to clarify my views... people seem to have this idiotic habit online of wanting to virtue signal and pretend people have said something they haven't or mean something they don't etc.. even after it's been clarified for them. @Greebo decided to do it in this thread with his hyperbolic comments etc..
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Aren't you the fussy one . . .
This was a Right-Wing Nut job, the stabbing in the Mosque last night seems like an Islamic Nut job, so they're all nut jobs, no one should be offended now as they're both equally crazy
Or I could just destroy myself in a frenzy of directionless outrage. Seems to be where humanity is headed at this stage anyway
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
Daily Mail and its readers reaching new levels...
I did notice that later you withdraw your remarks about them not being doctors and stuff once it became clear to you that it was no longer gang related.. But you did jump to an awful lot of assumptions very fast that since it involved a bunch of Turks you either assumed they were in a gang or didnt have good jobs and contributed to the country. Both of which could be taken to be a racist view.
No surprise as serverl posters on here have made exactly the same claim.
No I assumed that it was gang related as per other people in the thread - do gang members usually also work as doctors and engineers?
You seem so keen to want to throw around racism accusations - you threw some accusation of wanting to exterminate people at some other poster... What is the point - you clearly know you're just throwing in stuff that isn't there?
See exactly same thing happening when you get an Islamist attack - people (including on here) jump in with but but muh Iraq invasion/Western Foreign policy...
point made earlier on twitter by Maajid Nawaz
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
Except the non-nut jobs...
Im not one of those drawing a distinction - the extremism you seem to be trying to defend with whataboutery is no better or worse than any other.
What extremism do you think I’m trying to defend?