[That Bearded Man]

If he really believes in these pro-terror views do you think he'd openly tell that to his buddies? He makes a good point about George Bush. The important point is the 2 week jail term for texting while driving, i.e what manslaughter? 2 WEEKS!!!

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Bonged.)
..How? unless you were there in person?

Well the quote attributed to him by The Express Tribune is as such:

"If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush."

Presumably, as an educated man and a peer in the House of Lords, he wasn't being serious in his supposed expectation to have the world's most powerful man executed on his 'order'.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Well the quote attributed to him by The Express Tribune is as such:

"If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush."

Presumably, as an educated man and a peer in the House of Lords, he wasn't being serious in his supposed expectation to have the world's most powerful man executed on his 'order'.

Actually Ahmed has a very patchy record of supporting and fundraising for pakistani militant groups. Educated he may be but he is a liar and obviously has a different agenda to the one he publicly espouses.

[ali7861012]

so no one here thinks attacking a country on a lie (iraq) and killing 100 k people is not an act of terrorism?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by ali7861012)
so no one here thinks attacking a country on a lie (iraq) and killing 100 k people is not an act of terrorism?

Not really. It's aggressive militarism. Btw most people in the UK were against the Iraq war, I think cos we knew that we'd be hearing about it for decades to come from our ummah.

But this isn't important. What's important is that we have found out that this man supports terrorism and therefore shouldn't be in the house of lords. At least we can all agree on that.

[ali7861012]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Not really. It's aggressive militarism. Btw most people in the UK were against the Iraq war, I think cos we knew that we'd be hearing about it for decades to come from our ummah.

But this isn't important. What's important is that we have found out that this man supports terrorism and therefore shouldn't be in the house of lords. At least we can all agree on that.

ok, arrest this man, but only after bush and blair have been arrested. because lets go in order of importance - blair and bush have blood on their hands. this guy at the very most is just a sympathiser.

do you not agree?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by ali7861012)
ok, arrest this man, but only after bush and blair have been arrested. because lets go in order of importance - blair and bush have blood on their hands. this guy at the very most is just a sympathiser.

do you not agree?

No. Let's be realistic and first do what is in our power. I think people like you overestimate how much power the UK really has and how much power the populace of the UK has. We have the power to arrest Ahmed, we do not have the power to arrest Blair or Bush. Though if we did arrest Blair, I would happily support him being tried for war crimes and for deceiving the British public.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Actually Ahmed has a very patchy record of supporting and fundraising for pakistani militant groups. Educated he may be but he is a liar and obviously has a different agenda to the one he publicly espouses.

If he is guilty of a crime, the judicial process should ensue, but otherwise I will view this as the storm in a teacup for which it is; typical Daily Mail fodder. A facetious comment viewed with veracious populism.

I would have no problem with one of my friends saying it, nor do I particularly take exception to his comment specifically either.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
If he is guilty of a crime, the judicial process should ensue, but otherwise I will view this as the storm in a teacup for which it is; typical Daily Mail fodder. A facetious comment viewed with veracious populism.

I would have no problem with one of my friends saying it, nor do I particularly take exception to his comment specifically either.

That's your problem really. The majority of the electorate will, and will not wish for him to continue supporting terror groups, whether you think that's fine or not.

[pr0view]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
£1000 he's a Muslim.

£1000? He's asian and his name is Ahmed, i've put my mortgage on it.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by pr0view)
£1000? He's asian and his name is Ahmed, i've put my mortgage on it.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Bonged.)
That's your problem really. The majority of the electorate will, and will not wish for him to continue supporting terror groups, whether you think that's fine or not.

Not really my 'problem' though is it... You're the one getting butthurt over some insipid comment, and I'm the one brushing it off as a meaningless jibe. Likewise, you fail to see the fact that tabloid storms rarely transpose into genuine public anger. The reason they manifest themselves in the first place is to sell more papers and illicit more trade; not out of some 'moral duty' to reflect the public mindset.

Lastly, if you have evidence for the last part of your statement, I'll be interested to hear it, but in the mean time I'll take it that you're simply a lemming who has no option but to succumb to the will of his own confirmation bias.

[If you don't know what confirmation bias is, look it up diddums.]

[Bonged.]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Not really my 'problem' though is it... You're the one getting butthurt over some insipid comment, and I'm the one brushing it off as a meaningless jibe. Likewise, you fail to see the fact that tabloid storms rarely transpose into genuine public anger. The reason they manifest themselves in the first place is to sell more papers and illicit more trade; not out of some 'moral duty' to reflect the public mindset.

Lastly, if you have evidence for the last part of your statement, I'll be interested to hear it, but in the mean time I'll take it that you're simply a lemming who has no option but to succumb to the will of his own confirmation bias.

[If you don't know what confirmation bias is, look it up diddums.]

Well of course, because he supports numerous movements which I know you wouldn't have a problem with supporting from having to talk to you in the past.

Please. It's obvious which team he's playing for. People are aware of the corruption that is endemic in the labour party, alot of it coming from identity politicians like old Ahmed who only seek to further the interests of their particular "identity group".

You're quite bad at insults btw. Quite laughable that you - a muslim - call me a lemming. The height of irony.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Well of course, because he supports numerous movements which I know you wouldn't have a problem with supporting from having to talk to you in the past.

Please. It's obvious which team he's playing for. People are aware of the corruption that is endemic in the labour party, alot of it coming from identity politicians like old Ahmed who only seek to further the interests of their particular "identity group".

You're quite bad at insults btw. Quite laughable that you - a muslim - call me a lemming. The height of irony.

I'm not a Muslim, but there you go. I did come from a Muslim family, although I'm sure as you know, that doesn't make one a Muslim.

I'll repeat, if you have some evidence to support your claim, I'll be interested to hear it. Until then it's just an unsupported diatribe; nothing but a fart in the wind.

On another note, you do realise that I have no affiliation, connection to or desire to protect, the Labour party right? I'm a Liberal Democrat, but hey ho, I expect nothing less. For what it's worth, I have no stake in trying to insult you - I merely assess the situation and apply an accurate description. A lemming, blinded by an overwhelming bias.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
I'm not a Muslim, but there you go. I did come from a Muslim family, although I'm sure as you know, that doesn't make one a Muslim.

I'll repeat, if you have some evidence to support your claim, I'll be interested to hear it. Until then it's just an unsupported diatribe; nothing but a fart in the wind.

On another note, you do realise that I have no affiliation, connection to or desire to protect, the Labour party right? I'm a Liberal Democrat, but hey ho, I expect nothing less. For what it's worth, I have no stake in trying to insult you - I merely assess the situation and apply an accurate description. A lemming, blinded by an overwhelming bias.

What's that flag? Oh... couldn't have guessed.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Bonged.)
What's that flag? Oh... couldn't have guessed.

Point being?

Edit: As previously iterated, I have no affiliation nor connection to the Labour party or its proponents, nor do I have any disposition regarding 'Lord Ahmed', not least because I had absolutely no idea who he was before this story came out. My entire argument is stated around the fact that again, as I said before, even a monkey with an extra chromosome could tell he was being facetious, and that likewise; I wouldn't particularly have any problem with anyone else making the comment.

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by DJkG.1)
He served over 2 weeks I think but his sentence should have been suspended in law (appealed to Court of Appeal), so really he served 2+ weeks when he shouldn't really have...

Still nothing for a killing somone as result of being a pr**k

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
Point being?

Edit: As previously iterated, I have no affiliation nor connection to the Labour party or its proponents, nor do I have any disposition regarding 'Lord Ahmed', not least because I had absolutely no idea who he was before this story came out. My entire argument is stated around the fact that again, as I said before, even a monkey with an extra chromosome could tell he was being facetious, and that likewise; I wouldn't particularly have any problem with anyone else making the comment.

So you claim to know ahmeds agenda despite never having heard of him till this thread? Yeh thats the sound reasoning of a retard. ahmed is a confirmed scum bag who murdered someone with his car, and who fund raises for terrorists hiding behind 'charities' who have been responsible for murdering various civilians in india such as the mumbai attacks. So, his bitchy comments towards the US were simply becuase his best mate hafiz saeed is rightly being targetted as part of anti terrorism campagains - which have been largely ignored by both the UK and the US in the past.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
So you claim to know ahmeds agenda despite never having heard of him till this thread? Yeh thats the sound reasoning of a retard. ahmed is a confirmed scum bag who murdered someone with his car, and who fund raises for terrorists hiding behind 'charities' who have been responsible for murdering various civilians in india such as the mumbai attacks. So, his bitchy comments towards the US were simply becuase his best mate hafiz saeed is rightly being targetted as part of anti terrorism campagains - which have been largely ignored by both the UK and the US in the past.

Whoops, my bad!

I forgot to check 'the supreme list of confirmed scum bags'

Again, if there's any evidence, or even reason to suspect him of committing a specific crime - let it come to surface. Show me, and let is be raised in course. Thus far, nobody seems to have a single bad leaf to place upon him besides claiming him to be on the supposed list of 'confirmed scum bags' Oh the hilarity...

[PPE]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Isn't this the **** who killed someone while texting and got let off after about a week?

Anyway even labour wont be able to play this down, good riddance.

well, I think they played this down quite well