DS and DTV Part 48.

[Si_Crewe]

Now - I asked first - S

How about this?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... ostcount=7

Russia supports the legitimate Syrian regime, helps end a war and one of their diplomats gets murdered by a jihadi in apparent retaliation.

Would you say that's "reaping what you sow" or would you say that's making excuses for a completely unjustifiable terrorist act?

[Guest]

Reading that thread again, and even with the benefit of hindsight, there are so many cretins it's making me wanna punch the screen

The OP decides within 5 mins it's terrorism, and anyone who wavers from this FACT! is instantly labelled an apologist

The BBC is at fault for not leading the 10 o'clock news with the headline "IT WAS DA MUZZIES WOT DONE IT!!!!11"

Ads is a patronising wanker. "Please have respect for the dead by not disagreeing with me"

Whatjoesays clearly doesn't understand terrorism

And I'm only on page 6

[Guest]

Now - I asked first - S

How about this?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... ostcount=7

Russia supports the legitimate Syrian regime, helps end a war and one of their diplomats gets murdered by a jihadi in apparent retaliation.

Would you say that's "reaping what you sow" or would you say that's making excuses for a completely unjustifiable terrorist act?

Oh dear.

I know you have made a bit of an effort which is more than anyone else but the DS posters in question are:

Sport1--(this person goes beyond apolgism. He skirts around supporting it, look at his attitude in the Russian ambassador thread.)
JJwales
Aetius_Maralas
AnnetteKurtain
Scottie2121
&
bollywood (added by si)


No one can back up the accusation that any of the above are 'apologists' (definition to be provided by the relevant Guest), all we have is - durrrrrrr . . well they are aren't they.

[Guest]

Russia supports the legitimate Syrian regime, helps end a war and one of their diplomats gets murdered by a jihadi in apparent retaliation.

Would you say that's "reaping what you sow" or would you say that's making excuses for a completely unjustifiable terrorist act?

Neither.

[Vicky]

Reading that thread again, and even with the benefit of hindsight, there are so many cretins it's making me wanna punch the screen

The OP decides within 5 mins it's terrorism, and anyone who wavers from this FACT! is instantly labelled an apologist

The BBC is at fault for not leading the 10 o'clock news with the headline "IT WAS DA MUZZIES WOT DONE IT!!!!11"

Ads is a patronising wanker. "Please have respect for the dead by not disagreeing with me"

Whatjoesays clearly doesn't understand terrorism

And I'm only on page 6

Oh FFS!!

[Viper]

No links to counter consensus of opinion guest? No?

Apologism. So 2000's.

[DCI Guest]

A lovely example of Anne_666 changing her mind (and insults) to suit her own agenda:

Here she quotes The Independent article saying the suspect in custody may not be the perpetrator in the attack yesterday. Saying "It's looking increasingly likely" that the german police have the wrong person.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=84928660&postcount=480

Yet during the Cologne attacks at New Year when the Independent reported a 1000 men staged a mass assault she said it was "sensationalist reporting at it's worst" and the poster "may as well have linked the Mail"

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=81000604&postcount=251

[Guest]

Now - I asked first - S

How about this?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... ostcount=7

Russia supports the legitimate Syrian regime, helps end a war and one of their diplomats gets murdered by a jihadi in apparent retaliation.

Would you say that's "reaping what you sow" or would you say that's making excuses for a completely unjustifiable terrorist act?

Oh dear.

I know you have made a bit of an effort which is more than anyone else but the DS posters in question are:

Sport1--(this person goes beyond apolgism. He skirts around supporting it, look at his attitude in the Russian ambassador thread.)
JJwales
Aetius_Maralas
AnnetteKurtain
Scottie2121
&
bollywood (added by si)


No one can back up the accusation that any of the above are 'apologists' (definition to be provided by the relevant Guest), all we have is - durrrrrrr . . well they are aren't they.

Try reading DS.

Those listed are some that sites biggest apologists. Now you're here apologizing for them? You're the apologist's apologist!

look at Aetius_Maralas trying to bring in the Jo Cox terrible but unrelated murder into the lorry crash thread because someone is concerned about about the attack. That's being an apologist, it's trying to divert the subject and belittle people's concerns.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... tcount=163

[Dinkydoobie]

If anyone is interested as to why the police are saying "we might have to get used to the possibility the guy in custody isn't the perpetrator" or why they're suggesting that he could be part of a group of perpetrators.

The guy they arrested wasn't in posession of the gun and didn't have any blood on him. However, the tracking/telemetry of the HGV showed someone failing to start it, attempting again a couple of hours or so later and eventually doing so and leaving the engine running for several hours before it moved.

[VR6storm]

YAWN!!

Another dozy dough ball with nothing more to offer than - durrrrr, well, they just are, everyone knows that.


As for the definition, I asked a specific poster how they defined the word apologist. The reason I asked that is there are certain posters who view anyone who doesn't go into a prolonged and CAPITAL LETTER SPATTERED mad rant every time there is an outrage is an apologist. And there are a few of those around here.



Any links from you?

Would you like me to set out the list of 'apologists' again just to help you?

Will be happy to help.

Yawn yourself. If you're too blind to see it, you are beyond help. And no, you'll get no links from me. Go do your own work.

[VR6storm]

This is possibly the stupidest answer so far

Just provide a link you dope. Thats all that was asked for

In what way is that stupid? Reality check - it isn't stupid. I't what these post people post up time and time again when there's an event of the Berlin nature. As i said to the last guest, if you're too blind to see it, tough titty.

[Guest]

Now - I asked first - S

How about this?

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... ostcount=7

Russia supports the legitimate Syrian regime, helps end a war and one of their diplomats gets murdered by a jihadi in apparent retaliation.

Would you say that's "reaping what you sow" or would you say that's making excuses for a completely unjustifiable terrorist act?

Oh dear.

I know you have made a bit of an effort which is more than anyone else but the DS posters in question are:

Sport1--(this person goes beyond apolgism. He skirts around supporting it, look at his attitude in the Russian ambassador thread.)
JJwales
Aetius_Maralas
AnnetteKurtain
Scottie2121
&
bollywood (added by si)


No one can back up the accusation that any of the above are 'apologists' (definition to be provided by the relevant Guest), all we have is - durrrrrrr . . well they are aren't they.

Try reading DS.

Those listed are some that sites biggest apologists. Now you're here apologizing for them? You're the apologist's apologist!

look at Aetius_Maralas trying to bring in the Jo Cox terrible but unrelated murder into the lorry crash thread because someone is concerned about about the attack. That's being an apologist, it's trying to divert the subject and belittle people's concerns.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... tcount=163

They're not being an apologist for Islamist terrorists, they're making an irrelevant and inaccurate point.

Nil point!

[Guest]

YAWN!!

Another dozy dough ball with nothing more to offer than - durrrrr, well, they just are, everyone knows that.


As for the definition, I asked a specific poster how they defined the word apologist. The reason I asked that is there are certain posters who view anyone who doesn't go into a prolonged and CAPITAL LETTER SPATTERED mad rant every time there is an outrage is an apologist. And there are a few of those around here.



Any links from you?

Would you like me to set out the list of 'apologists' again just to help you?

Will be happy to help.

Yawn yourself. If you're too blind to see it, you are beyond help. And no, you'll get no links from me. Go do your own work.

Another member of the failed group.

No links, no evidence, just empty, ignorant rumblings.

[Guest]

If anyone is interested as to why the police are saying "we might have to get used to the possibility the guy in custody isn't the perpetrator" or why they're suggesting that he could be part of a group of perpetrators.

The guy they arrested wasn't in posession of the gun and didn't have any blood on him. However, the tracking/telemetry of the HGV showed someone failing to start it, attempting again a couple of hours or so later and eventually doing so and leaving the engine running for several hours before it moved.

The cynic in me thinks the reason they are now issuing statements like the ones mentioned above are for the same reasons the Police and various Authorities conspired to hide the mass sexual assaults in Cologne, Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Weil am Rein, Dusseldorf, Saltzburg, Vienna, Osterreich and Zurich at New Year.
The same reason the Cologne Police described the New Year celebrations as a "quiet night" initially until reports and videos from victims started appearing on youtube and other social media sites.

[Si_Crewe]

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost ... tcount=482

Gotta love the shit-eating smugness evident here.

Yes, we get that a lot of Muslims genuinely despise extremism and that many speak out against these incidents after the fact.

The problem, however, is the thousands of radicalised muslims going to fight in wars or marry jihadis and carrying out acts of terrorism and criminality in our societies.
The fact that these things happen so frequently rather suggests that the rejection of extremism doesn't actually happen anywhere near as consistently, or as sincerely, as it needs to or the perpetrators wouldn't actually have these attitudes.