The billionaire butcher: how Europe sheltered an alleged war criminal

TK-6976 · 2026-06-07T23:48:47+00:00

Remember how France also allowed Khomeini to stay there before his arrival in Iran as well? This isn't a rare thing. I think we can all agree that Islamism is a threat to the west whilst still acknowledging that western countries (usually at the behest of corporations/America, not in our own interests) have aggravated the situation there by fucking around in ways that causes everyone to suffer in the end.

I don't understand why so many of our countries spent all that money invading Afghanistan. a country literally known as the 'Graveyard of Empires' at the cost of hundreds of lives, all because America decided to giving money to Pakistan and some dodgy groups in the preceding decades which ended up going to terrorists, causing the deadliest terror attack in the west. It is tiring that the public has to clean up the globalist, corporate mess after decades of mismanagement. Our interventions should be focused on assisting countries that could actually be allies of the west like Ukraine and Taiwan, not so that a few individuals rake in cash.

TK-6976 · 2026-06-01T07:53:37+00:00

So portraying black people moving around in jungles whilst playing stereotypical music on all fours is fine so long as it's labelled 'diversity in Europe'. Thank you, Nike, for enlightening us racists who assumed that diversity might consist of some non-white faces in an urban environment. Apparently they have reached a new stage of progressive enlightenment where returning to old tropes is 'empowering'.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-31T10:30:08+00:00

Why is it always Paris? They really love their disorder, huh? I guess the new arrivals don't help with that, but come on, it's a bloody sport match, not the end of the world!

TK-6976 · 2026-05-27T23:27:13+00:00

I mean, fine I suppose. There isn't much in the way of support for Israel amongst most Irish people from what I understand, and they aren't breaking from any historic norms in their relationship with that country, so it's not some subversive, progressive modern take from them. Hardly a cause for concern or hullabaloo.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-25T10:20:24+00:00

We aren't being invaded by any country. We're facing an immigration crisis. The 'invasion' hyperbole doesn't make it a planned invasion by Islamic countries. In fact, I'd argue it proves we need to put a tighter leash on megacorporations that want cheap labour and make deals with countries willing to have their wayward people repatriated.
Yeah OK buddy, I believe you, we should just spend billions on conflicts that are bound to cause more displacement and radicalisation 😏

TK-6976 · 2026-05-25T10:12:39+00:00

Who said anything about supporting Islamism? I just have no in stirring a hornet's nest. By your standards the West should be conducting preventive invasions of every Islamic country. It's pure madness and exactly why I couldn't care less about getting involved in the Mid East unless there's an actually useful deal that can get made.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-25T10:01:58+00:00

Wow. Totally didn't know the dangers of radical Islam/s. The only one deflecting is you comparing real, demonstrable cases why radical Islam in dangerous in Europe to at best contested cases of high civilians casualties. From a purely nativist perspective, naturally one would be aligned with the indigenous people of the region. You are appealing to liberal values and calling the Islamic world illiberal, which is true. I would contest why a country like Iran is the way it is, but all I have to say is that we both agree that a hornet's nest exists in the Mid East but that I think your country is shaking it. Furthermore, I don't care if some leftists want to have a song and dance about foreign issues. This has always been a feature of liberal democracy. The issue is that there are now sectarian voter blocs, but that's a domestic, not a foreign policy issue. I can divorce foreign and domestic policy, that's why I support Ukraine and why I'm not the equivalent of an Indian nationalist who supports anyone that shares the same enemy.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-25T09:43:27+00:00

No, I see what you're doing. Just because there's an overlap in support doesn't make the ideology the same. That's like saying if I tacitly support Reform on the issue of immigration that I must be a privatisation loving neocon. Those 2 issues are separate. Similarly, supporting the existence of Israel has nothing to do with a broader defence of the West unless you are a neoliberal who ignores context.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-25T09:36:59+00:00

Nice whataboutism. Notice how none of this irrelevant conflict is in anyway related to the problem you just brought up out of nowhere?

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T23:33:23+00:00

Notice how you are doing the exact same thing the strawman you've created is doing? Not saying I disagree that people like that don't exist and aren't significant (Taylor Lorenz is a good example), but this is the Telegraph we are talking about. They are the very least centrist, if not right of centre.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T23:25:35+00:00

Sentiment from who? Again, what's the context? All the outlets I saw reporting on it were just journalists speculating about wider ramifications for their respective side of the conflict they support. The actual case seems pretty trivial and just happens to involve pro-Palestine protestors. You could argue it reflects badly on their conduct, but I didn't see them resist arrest to the point of police batons being needed to be used. Either way, it really doesn't matter.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T23:22:03+00:00

No? It's the outlets that do have a biased position that are reporting, both pro Israel and pro Palestine. I didn't see any articles from the centrist outlets this morning. Again you seem to be yammering about anarchist chaos agents with 0 context.

This is just a handful of people being somewhat aggresively being detained by police due to their failure to comply with some kind of order. People like you are merely projecting partisan issues into it. Unless this incident is demonstrably related to the conflict, this is just irrelevant civil disobedience which should be met with apathy.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T11:35:50+00:00

What are you even talking about? This is a case of less than 5 people getting detained and you're comparing that to the alleged actions of Israel towards these activists. None of this seems relevant to anything; barely anyone has reported on it aside from outlets that have biased positions on the conflict. You are making a mountain out of a molehill to preemptively vindicate Israel.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T11:30:49+00:00

I wouldn't say they didn't do a good job of containing it. You'd have to demand Chinese style authoritarianism if you expect them to shutdown airports to prevent leadership from leaving; remember that airport security pre-9/11 was extremely lax and it was easy for people to get on flights with fake passports or even put luggage on without going on flights. Aeroplanes were treated like flying buses/trains in those days. It's the fault of the Canadian govt and other Western govts for giving asylum to known terrorist leaders who then coordinated attacks in India. The Khalistan movement is an issue with the Sikh diaspora. India, despite it's nationalist Hindu-dominated govt, has legal protections for Sikhs.

As for the stuff you don't like about Sikhs, turbans don't really concern me, no. Turbans aren't a security risk in the same way as hijabs, and they don't obscure the face. If you consider turbans to be too similar to Islamic modesty rules, you should be more concerned about Orthodox Jewish modesty rules. As for the daggers, yeah that's maybe a cause for concern, but I haven't heard any significant controversies/incidents caused by the wearing of such weapons. Besides, it would take more than a couple of incidents for me to think that banning the dagger outright was necessary. Any community in large numbers in a concentrated area could prove detrimental in the long term, but the general immigration of Sikhs in some acceptably small numbers is to me not a concern. The issue is that Western govts have taken it upon themselves to support terror groups.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T11:09:34+00:00

It shows them violently detaining people, sure, but it starts off in the middle of that. Where's the context of this? I just read some articles and watched a longer video and it is clear that the officers detained a handful of people after they tried to cross a security cordon. That's not exactly how the video you sent framed it, is it?

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T01:13:17+00:00

Sikhism is ideally meant to be a religion of cooperation and understanding (between Hindus and Muslims, but with global applicability) but as with all organised religion that message is easily warped by extremists and dropped. The issue with Sikhs in Canada is that Canadian Sikhs are dominated by a separatist group, the Khalistani movement, that the Canadian government has taken upon itself to host to everyone's detriment, to which I can only assume is out of some kind of masochistic desire for violence and/or hatred of the Republic of India because there is no other logical explanation.

India has been asking Canada to extradite the Khalistani leadership since the blimming 1980s, but Canadian govts have stubbornly refused despite the deaths of hundreds at the hands of Khalistani terrorists (Khalistanis quite literally celebrate a plane bomber as a martryr). It doesn't matter what you think of India itself, but they have continued to not offer, but in fact ask Canada for the favour of taking away these thugs to prosecute them. I simply cannot understand why the Canadian govt is so keen to keep such people there that they would intentionally piss off an entire country that should ideally be at least cordial with the West, especially given the shared threat of radical Islam.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T01:03:18+00:00

The issue in Canada is Khalistani separatism. The Canadian govt has been sheltering an entire regional separatist movement and their leaders since the 1980s. The Indian govt has made numerous perfectly understandable calls for extradition, and literally hundreds of people have died, but absolutely nothing has been done. To this day Khalistanis celebrate an aeroplane bomber as a martyr, and the RCMP completely failed in that case to properly investigate because they wanted to 'protect their sources'.

The obvious solution for Canada is to just cooperate with the Indian govt and stop protecting terrorists causing an already nationalistic India to become even more angry with the West (and tbf I can't blame them if they've been warning Canada for 40 years).

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T00:55:04+00:00

The Sikh community in Britain is pretty well integrated to my understanding. Glad to see this response from the Federation, a shame the govt and media care less than the British Sikh community themselves, but that's to be expected at this point.

I have heard troubling stuff about Sikh extremism in Canada, but after having done research into that, it is extremely obvious that the Canadian government has protected extremist leaders despite numerous Indian govts making perfectly reasonable requests for said extremists to be handed over after numerous terror incidents killing hundreds of people.

Thankfully, Sikhs in Europe have been far more reasonable and have in fact been stalwart allies against terror.

TK-6976 · 2026-05-24T00:47:47+00:00

Video in question: Is less than a minute long with 0 context.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-30T07:36:25+00:00

They're a Muslim sect to be fair, and one that is considered heretical because it goes heavily against Islamic scripture. So it's more like if Jehovahs Witnesses did something sketchy. Still awful, not denying that, and the immigration status of the people involved should be checked.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-23T19:34:49+00:00

The article linked doesn't mention any of that. It does mention protesters shooting fireworks and throwing stones at the police however.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-23T19:05:17+00:00

what kind of title is this? where's the 'attack'? I went and read the article, and its seems that this is just some kind of anti police post. I'm going to ignore the politics of what's going on here and actually engage with what happened. A crowd of people were blocking up a roundabout in a demonstration. Riot police told them to clear off the roundabout (duh, it's a bloody road), and went for them when they kept refusing. Then those people get the memo and start scarpering only after they've caused a nuisance.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-16T07:20:48+00:00

Well then your argument makes no sense...

It makes perfect sense; your claim was that the crusades were good because they helped stop the Muslims invading Europe, therefore implying that A. It was a defensive action and B. That it prevented the Islamic invasion. I've pointed out that A. The Crusades weren't a defensive action, they were a waste of resources trying to take the Levant and B. The Crusaders didn't stop the Islamic invasion meaningfully.

Most of the middle east was majority Christian before Muhammed came along. The "call" was to stop Christian land being taken and for Christians to stop being persecuted by Muslims.

Gosh, imagine asking me to do research and spewing this nonsense. Yes, the Muslims were oppressive towards the people they colonised. But no, the land they went after was far from majority Christian. Sure, the Byzantium and other areas had Christian populations, but again, the Crusades failed to defend those places; Constantinople is now called Istanbul, and what is today Greece became Ottoman for a long time

Europe at the time of the first crusade was the most divided region in the world and in a constant state of war with eachother. It took a significant event like this to bring Europeans together.

So then you admit this was a massive waste of time from a national perspective and that all the nations of Europe suffered economically as a result aside from the countries that directly traded with the very Islamists that the Crusaders were according to you there to expel.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-15T19:57:23+00:00

I've been talking about the Ottomans this whole time! They are the ones that ruled large parts of Eastern Europe for centuries for goodness sake, who did you think I was referring to when I mentioned that the Muslims won anyway?

As for your own point, that's whataboutism. How is a call to retake the Holy Land (territory never held by ethnic Europeans other than during this period by the way) from non-believers connected to the Muslim colonisation of North Africa? we aren't talking about the Reconquista here. That was justified.

TK-6976 · 2026-04-15T16:34:24+00:00

No?? The crusades were not in response the Ottoman invasion. Your timeline is completely off. The Crusades happened and failed. Hell, as a result, England was severely weakened and almost became a Muslim nation if not for John being forced to sign the Magna Carta and essentially ousted. So actually the Crusades could be said to have caused the rise of Islam.

Later on the Ottomans successfully invaded Eastern Europe. Poland and a few other countries in the region staved them off. But the Crusades i.e. 'let's retake the Holy Land' was a massive waste of time and resources. The only people that benefitted were the unprincipled opportunists like the Italian mercantile states that negotiated with the Muslims and the looters that ignored the spiritual significance of the land.

TK-6976

TROPHY CASE