OP, in 1938, reading the newspaper. Reads about kristallnacht.
"In my vast policing experience, this didn't happen"
Because of the lack of internet he is unable to open thread on boards. He puts down the newspaper happy out he has told those liberals what is what in his mind again. The end.
Attacks and abuse thrown at women in Islamic dress are common in the U.K. And have increased massively in recent years. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that similar stuff occurs in the US considering the xenophobia being stoked there.
She's probably 3 or 4 raccoons dressed up in a trench coat with an intricate string and pulley system.
'Bout as based on fact as your statement
It's not. It's purpose is to bring the "debate" down to two points of view that are well aired on Boards and neither party will convince the other that they are wrong
I’m struggling to find a point of this thread other than to be divisive.
There have been several so called anti Islam attacks that were proved fake over the last year or so. Would not be surprised if this proves to be the case here. Justin Trudeau, never one to miss a chance to virtue signal has condemned it. Hope he ends up with egg all over his smug face.
There just wasn't a thread on the first page of After Hours that allowed people to vent about either Islam or islamaphobia, so the OP helpfully searched the depths of the internet for something.
Exactly, even if this is a hoax (everything is possible) you can be sure there are countless real examples of Muslims in America being abused in the street.
Stories get legs , the media take them on, politicians get involved and give the story a higher profile, makes the news on TV and now it becomes a REAL story irrespective of whether it happened or not - or something fairly innocent may have happened but certainly not the story that was put out there. So I wonder what was the case here. Everybody, by their utterances/ actions have an agenda- be it an overt or covert one. There is no problem with one having an agenda but are they trying to keep it SECRET?
By way of example , on the Late Late show last night, Liam Neeson had a very frightening story about a man who touched a woman's back in some endearing way during an interview or some similar situation in public felt that he should mention it to the lady afterwards that he should not have done it- now that we are in the ' Wynestein era'. He reiterated again a short time afterwards again what he had done and apologised for it. The lady ,on all occasions said not to worry, it was nothing, etc, etc. A few months afterwards a solicitor representing the lady sent a letter to the gentleman about the matter. You probably can accurately guess what the letter was about. Neeson was making the point that this area of "who touches who, in what way, etc , etc, etc" is gone overboard.
So if it goes to court, who's story will will be believedand which story will be the correct one?
Is this 'there was no Muslim terrorists attack this week that I know of but we have to fill antimuslim quota' thread? You can do better op, I'm sure someone blew themselves up in Kabul or Mogadishu or somewhere. You can start a thread about that.
Sure it’s only noteworthy if it’s in the West. Muslims killing Muslims is surely a good thing in some people’s eyes.
Stopped watching after a minute, though the young lad in the background was funny, fixing his hair and sh1t
I hope it's in the past if you don't know the rules when dealing with any suspected assault on a child.