Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Muslim woman in Hijab pushed into a moving train by a man in London watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Funny isn't it, muslims complain when the press mention a person faith in certain crimes but lap it up when the same terminology can be used to show us how much a victim someone is

    You mention faith and dress yet until we know why she was pushed (he could just hate women for example or be a racist ****) shouldn't you be a little more restrained in your judgement?

    (reminds me of the vid that people were using to show muslim women were being constantly attacked in the streets but then we found out the same person just had a problem with women as he attacked a non muslim women in the weeks before)
    hypocrisy pisses everyone off but mate stfu and look at the video; she could've died.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Superb post, as usual.

    Further to that, even though I object to the term Islamophobia, would it not be rational in some ways to fear Islam? As a gay man, there are many reasons for me to be wary of that religion. There are ten countries in the world that prescribe death for homosexual conduct; they are all Muslim countries. That is not a coincidence.

    It's not a coincidence that the Quran calls for death for the "people of Lot" and that you then see groups who are trying to be the "most Islamic" hurling gay men from tall buildings. It's not a coincidence, in my eyes, that the Quran decrees that the testimony of a woman shall be worth half that of a man's, and that consequently the status of women is worse in the Middle East than any other place on earth.

    I do not hate any individual Muslim merely for their religion. But I do despise it as a religion (and I am opposed to all religion). I despise the fact that it has such an "in group" mentality that many of its practitioners find it impossible to integrate into society, and are through some as yet unexplained mechanism uniquely sensitive to the suffering of all Muslims everywhere while simultaneously being quite insensitive to the suffering of victims of Islamic ideology.

    I would never be rude to, or harm, an individual Muslim because of their religion. I believe in showing courtesy to all peoples. But that doesn't require me to pretend I don't find their religion highly offensive and dangerous in many ways
    The term Islamophobia is a ridiculous term. A "phobia" is an irrational fear. When people in the West dislike Islam then they have seen what the values of Islam (both in the UK and in Muslim nations) and simply decided they don't like it. An informed opinion, based on real events occurring in the world, and not a phobia at all.

    As for the homosexual part-there are Christian communities in Africa that have a similar view on gays. Russia is not a Muslim country at all and yet look how they treat gays. I do not disagree with your point at all, I agree that the Koran and Muslim nations do not respect gays as worthy of having basic human rights or even the right to exist. I am just saying that all the countries who treat gay people badly are not all Muslim.

    As for the womens' rights issue the Koran clearly states that a woman must produce four witnesses to accuse a man of rape and as a result even Dubai (one of the more open and tolerant Middle Eastern nations) adopts this view; see the case of the Danish woman who was raped and got a longer sentence than her attacker.

    And I also agree with you in your last paragraph. In particular the part where you state you don't have to like Islam or its values. No culture that is so hostile to criticism and at the same time forceful of its views on those who do not wish to see it should be given in to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boondock Saint)
    There is no strawman here. I have never claimed that she was attacked because she was wearing a headscarf, only that it is very reasonable to assume that this may have been the case.
    No, the strawman was your claim that the other poster claimed that the platform was empty. They didn't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    I would certainly assert that it is highly unlikely that he is motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment.

    As for any anti-Muslim sentiment, it is for you to prove your case. If you want to adduce evidence that he was motivated by anti-Islamic bias, I am certainly happy to consider it.
    So what would motivate a man to push someone out in front of a moving train?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I'm just simply asking whether you think Sinjar is more strategic to IS or the Kurds.

    If it's more strategic to IS, then they will launch attacks to take it back.
    No, that doesn't necessarily follow. ISIL commanders will carefully consider whether they would lose more fighters than they would gain. An unsuccessful attack is worse than no attack at all; you lose fighters, you lose credibility, you undermine your position in other places from which you have to remove troops to man your counterattack.

    ISIL could certainly attempt to retake it; it is highly unlikely they would be successful at this time, when there are over 7000 Kurdish fighters in and around the town, when Kurdish artillery is set up on the heights overlooking the town, when US and British aircraft and surveillance assets are still focused on the area and British/American special forces are still in the area.

    An ISIL attack on such a substantial force would fail. ISIL has already demonstrated they cannot prevail over a small Kurdish force supported by American airpower as happened at Kobane, and that was with an open road between Kobane and Raqqa along which they could send considerable reinforcements.

    You seem to think the mere fact ISIL wants it back means they would be successful in a counterattack. You also assume that ISIL has substantial forces they can simply send to counterattack Sinjar. Even if ISIL did have perhaps a couple of thousand fighters ready to counterattack, to move them up to the battle area would be a massacre. There's no way they could move along Highway 47 in large numbers without being spotted and attacked by Western air power.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    No, that doesn't necessarily follow. ISIL commanders will carefully consider whether they would lose more fighters than they would gain. An unsuccessful attack is worse than no attack at all; you lose fighters, you lose credibility, you undermine your position in other places from which you have to remove troops to man your counterattack.

    ISIL could certainly attempt to retake it; it is highly unlikely they would be successful at this time, when there are over 7000 Kurdish fighters in and around the town, when Kurdish artillery is set up on the heights overlooking the town, when US and British aircraft and surveillance assets are still focused on the area and British/American special forces are still in the area.

    An ISIL attack on such a substantial force would fail. ISIL has already demonstrated they cannot prevail over a small Kurdish force supported by American airpower as happened at Kobane, and that was with an open road between Kobane and Raqqa along which they could send considerable reinforcements.

    You seem to think the mere fact ISIL wants it back means they would be successful in a counterattack. You also assume that ISIL has substantial forces they can simply send to counterattack Sinjar. Even if ISIL did have perhaps a couple of thousand fighters ready to counterattack, to move them up to the battle area would be a massacre. There's no way they could move along Highway 47 in large numbers without being spotted and attacked by Western air power.
    You seem to know everything but how about you answer the question:

    What's the death count of IS members in Sinjar?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    As for the homosexual part-there are Christian communities in Africa that have a similar view on gays. Russia is not a Muslim country at all and yet look how they treat gays. I do not disagree with your point at all, I agree that the Koran and Muslim nations do not respect gays as worthy of having basic human rights or even the right to exist. I am just saying that all the countries who treat gay people badly are not all Muslim.
    How many non-Muslim countries have the death penalty for gay people? I am not saying Muslims are the only homophobes in the world. I am saying that the only countries that prescribe death for homosexuals are Muslim countries. If it were one or two you could say maybe it's a coincidence. But close to a dozen? It clearly is not.

    As for the womens' rights issue the Koran clearly states that a woman must produce four witnesses to accuse a man of rape and as a result even Dubai (one of the more open and tolerant Middle Eastern nations) adopts this view; see the case of the Danish woman who was raped and got a longer sentence than her attacker.
    Women are also entitled to significantly less, as a matter of Islamic law, in inheritance matters.

    And I also agree with you in your last paragraph. In particular the part where you state you don't have to like Islam or its values. No culture that is so hostile to criticism and at the same time forceful of its views on those who do not wish to see it should be given in to.
    Agreed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You seem to know everything but how about you answer the question
    By which you mean to say, "Oh no, we got one that can read. He doesn't answer in simplistic, monosyllabic grunts. Burn him"

    What's the death count of IS members in Sinjar?
    I'm not going to answer further questions after this, it's clear you're just asking silly questions to which you don't know the answer in the deluded belief you're going to find some fact that "catches him out". You were wrong about Mount Sinjar, you really need to get over it.

    iirc it was about 150 ISIL fighters killed in Sinjar, about 20 at the cement factory on the road to Ibrat Ash and another 15 at Baaj
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King Mal)
    hypocrisy pisses everyone off but mate stfu and look at the video; she could've died.
    But she didn't

    Let's stick with the facts shall we rather than getting pissy over what could have but actually didn't happen.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Funny isn't it, muslims complain when the press mention a person faith in certain crimes but lap it up when the same terminology can be used to show us how much a victim someone is
    Excellent post and spot on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No, the strawman was your claim that the other poster claimed that the platform was empty. They didn't.
    Baconandsauce essentially asserted that my assumption of other people being around her on the platform was unjustified, to which Skip_Snip agreed and requested images of other people being there. Skip_Snip also asserted that "no one else was in the frame" - I put it to him that everyone Yoshiyuki Shinohora walked past on his way to the end of the platform was in the frame.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    So what would motivate a man to push someone out in front of a moving train?
    Madness? Of course you've already discounted that possibility for emotional reasons (it would "condone" the act, in your words).

    The reality is that none of us know why he did it, which makes it highly inappropriate to push the narrative that this is about the oppression of Muslims
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boondock Saint)
    Baconandsauce essentially asserted that my assumption of other people being around her on the platform was unjustified
    because the video does not show anyone 'around her' it shows a few farther down the platform and the others are all out of shot
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boondock Saint)
    Except that's not what was said. They requested to see images of other women on the platform, why ask such a thing if they didn't believe the platform was quiet? I'm also sceptical of the assertion that the section of the platform she was on was quiet. We can see people rushing into the footage within 3 seconds of her being pushed, which means people were probably standing the same distance away from him as she was but towards the left.
    It is clearly reasonable to assume that the questions relate to the visible area of the platform - probably around 10m. The victim and attacker are standing in the middle of this clear area. If anyone was standing within 5m to the left, we would see the top of their head in the bottom of the shot (indoor CCTV cameras have wide-angle lenses).

    Now, I don't know if you have been on the London Underground, but a West End station with a clear area of platform at least 10m wide is pretty quiet! One thing that I have noticed that causes sections of a busy platform to clear is the presence of "The Nutter". I have had it happen to me, you walk out of the access tunnel onto a crowded platform and see a clear space further up. "Oh good" you think to yourself, as you stand in the middle of it. No struggling with the crowds. But wait, what is that behind me? Oh bugger!
    She is clearly on her phone so either not concentrating on what is going on around her, or deliberately trying to ignore it.

    Proximity cannot be ruled out because there is clearly no one else (other than the couple at the far end) on that section of the platform.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    By which you mean to say, "Oh no, we got one that can read. He doesn't answer in simplistic, monosyllabic grunts. Burn him"
    Your mental commentary would be hilarious, if it didn't betray hints of paranoia.

    I'm not going to answer further questions after this, it's clear you're just asking silly questions to which you don't know the answer in the deluded belief you're going to find some fact that "catches him out". You were wrong about Mount Sinjar, you really need to get over it.

    iirc it was about 150 ISIL fighters killed in Sinjar, about 20 at the cement factory on the road to Ibrat Ash and another 15 at Baaj
    You have 7500 troops, heavy machinery, airpower, drones, tanks and superior firepower descending on one little town and you only kill around 175 IS members.

    According to some reports, there are an estimated 600 IS members in Sinjar so unless 400 members are holed up in the various pockets that are holding out (remember where you said that all roads leading to Sinjar are probably blocked), we should expect 400 IS deaths which is not bad going when you outnumber the enemy 10-1, and with airpower, and with heavier firepower.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    Madness? Of course you've already discounted that possibility for emotional reasons (it would "condone" the act, in your words).

    The reality is that none of us know why he did it, which makes it highly inappropriate to push the narrative that this is about the oppression of Muslims
    How many Muslims have to be pushed in front of trains or be attacked before you mentally declassify their attackers as simply "being mad"?

    Give me a number I can work with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Nah,nothing to do with proximity. It's because she was a Muslim. End of
    You don't have evidence for that assertion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Suprised no one did nothing to the guy.
    I Would have beat the living day lights if i see a man if he pushed a bird infront of a train near me.
    Dont give damn if shes muslim
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    It is clearly reasonable to assume that the questions relate to the visible area of the platform - probably around 10m. The victim and attacker are standing in the middle of this clear area. If anyone was standing within 5m to the left, we would see the top of their head in the bottom of the shot (indoor CCTV cameras have wide-angle lenses).

    Now, I don't know if you have been on the London Underground, but a West End station with a clear area of platform at least 10m wide is pretty quiet! One thing that I have noticed that causes sections of a busy platform to clear is the presence of "The Nutter". I have had it happen to me, you walk out of the access tunnel onto a crowded platform and see a clear space further up. "Oh good" you think to yourself, as you stand in the middle of it. No struggling with the crowds. But wait, what is that behind me? Oh bugger!
    She is clearly on her phone so either not concentrating on what is going on around her, or deliberately trying to ignore it.

    Proximity cannot be ruled out because there is clearly no one else (other than the couple at the far end) on that section of the platform.
    The platform being quiet, busy, or jam-packed, are all very different things. I used to change at Piccadilly Circus every single day, never once have I ever seen it "pretty quiet". It's always at the very least reasonably busy, that's why I find it very hard to believe that other people weren't in close proximity to both the attacker and the victim.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You have 7500 troops, heavy machinery, airpower, drones, tanks and superior firepower descending on one little town and you only kill around 175 IS members.

    According to some reports, there are an estimated 600 IS members in Sinjar so unless 400 members are holed up in the various pockets that are holding out (remember where you said that all roads leading to Sinjar are probably blocked), we should expect 400 IS deaths which is not bad going when you outnumber the enemy 10-1, and with airpower, and with heavier firepower.
    It's been reported that there were also 300+ ISIL fighters wounded, and the BBC correspondent on the scene reported that ISIL troops had been withdrawing south (the only way open to them). Presumably that means either to Baaj or Ain Fathi.

    There were no reported Kurdish deaths yesterday, so yes they did quite well to kill 150 terrorists with no apparent losses to themselves.

    The Kurds proceeded south from Highway 47 to Baaj last night, where they killed 15 ISIL terrorists and reportedly clipped the ISIL Emir of Baaj. Best case scenario for ISIL is that they may have a couple of hundred fighters in Ain Fathi who could mount some kind of suicidal counterattack, and be quickly snuffed out. I do seem to have got through to you about the virtual impossibility of a counterattack along Highway 47.

    If you forget, just refer back to my comment above at 18:37 which clearly outlines why it's unlikely there will be any successful counterattack.

    Good night.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.