Trump lies in attack on London attack

truthatallcost · Jun 11, 2017

Chagos said:
It's out there to find.

As is the real name of the law firm that Khan was part of after Michael Fisher left it (Fisher Khan it was not, and not even before it was again renamed).

You think I'm gonna do yer work for you?

So no proof and you're just splitting hairs over the name of the law firm.

truthatallcost · Jun 11, 2017

By the way, I do enjoy the irony of an Islamist who's law firm is called Christian Khan. :lamo

Chagos · Jun 11, 2017

truthatallcost said:
So no proof ...................~

Why would I feel the need to supply proof to you?

Better said "especially" to you?

You made the claim that Khan never worked a criminal case, you go prove that one to start with.

Chagos · Jun 11, 2017

truthatallcost said:
By the way, I do enjoy the irony of an Islamist who's law firm is called Christian Khan. :lamo

1) It's whose.
2) He's not an Islamist
3) Ever heard of Toghrul Khan (title, not name)

truthatallcost · Jun 11, 2017

Chagos said:
Why would I feel the need to supply proof to you?

Better said "especially" to you?

You made the claim that Khan never worked a criminal case, you go prove that one to start with.

He did work a criminal though; he took Farrakhan's money, and failed to get him off the banned list. :mrgreen:

truthatallcost · Jun 11, 2017

Chagos said:
1) It's whose.
2) He's not an Islamist
3) Ever heard of Toghrul Khan (title, not name)

Let's make actual arguments Chagos, not send each other to Wikipedia to discern what the other is speaking about.

Chagos · Jun 11, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Let's make actual arguments Chagos, not send each other to Wikipedia to discern what the other is speaking about.

For those three I didn't need Wikipedia, I could write the possessive adjective properly before there was even the www and that Toghrul was Christian is something I learned in school.

But if wiki helps you, I have no complaints over that.

truthatallcost · Jun 11, 2017

Chagos said:
For those three I didn't need Wikipedia, I could write the possessive adjective properly before there was even the www and that Toghrul was Christian is something I learned in school.

But if wiki helps you, I have no complaints over that.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Khan became a partner in 1997, and like Christian, specialised in human rights law. When Fisher left in 2002, the firm was renamed Fisher Khan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan

Do you know what it is to be in a law partnership? Each partner has equal say and contributes capital to the running of the partnership.

Khan was a partner in the law firm, meaning that he voted on manners as an equal of the other partners. You've now unsuccessfully tried to pawn this off on

1) the cab rank principle
2) Khan's law partners

Given the timeline of the Farrakhan case, it is clear that Sadiq Khan CHOSE to represent the Nation of Islam, as was not assigned the case. No one was in a position to force Khan into representing Louis Farrakhan. You can stop your guessing game now.

The High Court's decision was overturned by an Appeals Court panel..

The ruling said Mr Blunkett's ban "did not involve a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.
BBC News | UK | Farrakhan British ban stays

..and the House of Lords backed up the Appeals Courts ruling..

Lords back ban on Farrakhan | London Evening Standard

The Nation of Islam has a record of creating public disorder, and this is likely why the High Courts decision was overturned. Farrakhan remains banned from the UK. All subsequent efforts to lift the ban have failed.

Disproven this one already.

His employment conditions aren't a valid excuse. Try again.

Every argument you've tried has failed. You shouldn't be so quick to throw around the word 'stupid' when you're arguing purely from personal attachment to Khan and Farrakhan, and not from facts.

No he didn't. Farrakhan has not been to the UK since the original ban in 1986.

I've already stated I was applying Khan's employment to the cab rank. Don't make false claims.

As for his work on a human rights case, when the ban was overturned it was under Human Rights law.

Sadiq Khan said:
'I have never hidden the fact that I was a human rights lawyer.
Unfortunately, that means that I had to speak on behalf of some unsavoury individuals.
Some of their views made me feel deeply uncomfortable, but it was my job.'

You're still trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and we still haven't been able to return to the main point of the thread which is Trump (IRA fundraiser) trying to smear Sadiq Khan (human rights lawyer) reassuring people about greater numbers of armed police on London's streets.

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
I've already stated I was applying Khan's employment to the cab rank. Don't make false claims.

As for his work on a human rights case, when the ban was overturned it was under Human Rights law.

Khan himself admitted that many of his cases were "not obviously a breach of human rights laws", yet he took them anyway.

As a partner in the booming legal firm Christian Khan, the future Tooting MP developed a specialism in suing the police and advised that spotting a human rights “angle” would increase the chances of fees being met from legal aid.

“Think laterally in looking for human rights issues,” he counselled in a how-to guide called Actions Against The Police. “Many are not obviously a breach of human rights, but have a human rights angle.”

Why Sadiq Khan cannot escape questions about extremists | London Evening Standard

You're still trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and we still haven't been able to return to the main point of the thread which is Trump (IRA fundraiser) trying to smear Sadiq Khan (human rights lawyer) reassuring people about greater numbers of armed police on London's streets.

You haven't even learned the most shocking things that your mayor has done! You aren't going to tap out now I hope.

Sadiq Khan's resume, prior to proclaiming himself a 'moderate Muslim' and running for mayor:

• Spoke at a conference alongside Yasser al-Sirri, who claimed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “died an honourable death”.

• Shared a stage with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, who the Sunday Times reported ran a camp in Pakistan that trained militants including the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. In neither case was he giving legal advice.

• Successfully freed 3 members from the militant group Hizb-ut-Tahrir who were banged up abroad. Khan got them all sent back to the UK.

• Attended the GPU Event you mentioned earlier. Concession stands at the event offered T-shirts on sale that said slogans like ‘kill the invader’.

• Tried to convince Labour MPs that Yusuf al-Qaradawi was being discriminated against. Al-Qaradawi is an Egyptian Islamic scholar associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who once said: “Oh God, deal with the usurpers and oppressors and tyrannical Jews.”

Why Sadiq Khan cannot escape questions about extremists | London Evening Standard

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sadiq-khan-supported-islamist-cleric-jwxdvnjdb

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

Anybody notice a pattern here? Good old Sadiq was elected, despite numerous questionable ties to extremist Islam. Oh well, they aren't all that way.

PeteEU · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Anybody notice a pattern here? Good old Sadiq was elected, despite numerous questionable ties to extremist Islam. Oh well, they aren't all that way.

What ties to "extremist Islam"?

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

PeteEU said:
What ties to "extremist Islam"?

That was for the people who've read the thread.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Khan himself admitted that many of his cases were "not obviously a breach of human rights laws", yet he took them anyway.

And this has to do with Farrakhan? The ban was overturned in 2001 on Human Rights free speech terms before being reinstated. I've already told you this.

truthatallcost said:
~ You haven't even learned the most shocking things that your mayor has done! You aren't going to tap out now I hope ~

So you obviously didn't read my post days ago when I said there were other things you were better accusing Khan on? Why are you continuing to waste my time?

And my turn: I repeat "the main point of the thread which is Trump (at an IRA fundraiser) trying to smear Sadiq Khan (human rights lawyer) reassuring people about greater numbers of armed police on London's streets."

What does this do to Trump's claims against Khan? Months after Trump was at the fundraiser, bombs went off in London, Canary Wharf. Farrakhan cannot be tied to anything similar.

Chagos · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:

I know.

And I wish I could say the same thing for you. :2razz:

Kiwimac · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
By the way, I do enjoy the irony of an Islamist who's law firm is called Christian Khan. :lamo

Sadiq Khan is not an Islamist. He is a moderate Muslim.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

Kiwimac said:
Sadiq Khan is not an Islamist. He is a moderate Muslim.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Thank you for reposting this statement from Khan's website. Have a nice day.

Kiwimac · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Thank you for reposting this statement from Khan's website. Have a nice day.

Try to think for once.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
And this has to do with Farrakhan? The ban was overturned in 2001 on Human Rights free speech terms before being reinstated. I've already told you this.

Actually, Sir Mark Turner was supposed to release a report describing his reasons for overturning the ban, which was supposed to be available October, 2001. Turner was the only judge who sided with Farrakhan throughout the entire lawsuit, remember.

Turner suspended his own ruling, which means that Farrakhan actually wasn't ever free to enter the UK after the ban.

I don't think Turner's report ever materialized, due to the little issue of 9/11 occurring 1 month after his suspended ruling. So Turner must have tucked his tail between his legs, and never issued the report, as there's no record of it.

Farrakhan plans visit to Britain as ban is lifted - Telegraph

The gist being; there's no documented statement from the High Court judge explaining his reasoning, but he suspended his own ruling, which casts doubt on any 'human rights violations'.

So you obviously didn't read my post days ago when I said there were other things you were better accusing Khan on? Why are you continuing to waste my time?

I'm not trying to waste your time IC. I just felt like forum members should know that the Mayor of London agreed to share a stage with one of the participants of the 7/7 attacks. And the clown ass voters actually support this man, perhaps both men.

And my turn: I repeat "the main point of the thread which is Trump (at an IRA fundraiser) trying to smear Sadiq Khan (human rights lawyer) reassuring people about greater numbers of armed police on London's streets."

I don't believe that Trump smeared Khan at an IRA fundraiser, no. You're free to provide links which I'll take a look at.

What does this do to Trump's claims against Khan? Months after Trump was at the fundraiser, bombs went off in London, Canary Wharf. Farrakhan cannot be tied to anything similar.

Again, provide links to your claims, like I do and I'll be happy to discuss.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 12, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Actually, Sir Mark Turner was supposed to release a report describing his reasons for overturning the ban, which was supposed to be available October, 2001. Turner was the only judge who sided with Farrakhan throughout the entire lawsuit, remember.

Turner suspended his own ruling, which means that Farrakhan actually wasn't ever free to enter the UK after the ban.

I don't think Turner's report ever materialized, due to the little issue of 9/11 occurring 1 month after his suspended ruling. So Turner must have tucked his tail between his legs, and never issued the report, as there's no record of it.

Farrakhan plans visit to Britain as ban is lifted - Telegraph

The gist being; there's no documented statement from the High Court judge explaining his reasoning, but he suspended his own ruling, which casts doubt on any 'human rights violations'.

[/sigh] Of course 9/11 had an impact however Farrakhan had nothing to do with that. The ban was lifted on human rights grounds and then brought back in. I've said this repeatedly.

truthatallcost said:
I'm not trying to waste your time IC. I just felt like forum members should know that the Mayor of London agreed to share a stage with one of the participants of the 7/7 attacks. And the clown ass voters actually support this man, perhaps both men.

3 pages plus of round and round... Like I said before, there are other reasons to criticise Khan beyond his legal work.

truthatallcost said:
I don't believe that Trump smeared Khan at an IRA fundraiser, no. You're free to provide links which I'll take a look at.

Again, provide links to your claims, like I do and I'll be happy to discuss.

Let me rephrase. For the purpose of clarity and to minimise any wriggle-out room: Trump (who has been pictured at an IRA fundraiser event in 1995 or so, even shaking hands with Gerry Adams at his joke about "Trump cards") having the gall to criticise Khan as London Mayor now (however he worked as a human rights lawyer previously)

And just in case you want video before you obfuscate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2ZPcPHJAno

Again, months after the fundraising event, a huge bomb at Canary Wharf London.

truthatallcost · Jun 12, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
[/sigh] Of course 9/11 had an impact however Farrakhan had nothing to do with that. The ban was lifted on human rights grounds and then brought back in October. I've said this repeatedly.

Rubbish. You read a story that quotes 1 unnamed lawyer, and conflated that with Turner's suspended ruling. Once again you're demonstrating your personal bias in favor of the 2 Khans.

Prove that Turner cited any supposed human rights ground in his ruling.

3 pages plus of round and round... Like I said before, there are other reasons to criticise Khan beyond his legal work.

Khan wasn't acting as a lawyer when he pressured the MPs to soften their stance on radicalism, he was MP for Tooting. Most of Khan's suspicious activity occurred as a politician, not during his days chasing ambulances.

Let me rephrase. For the purpose of clarity and to minimise any wriggle-out room: Trump (who has been pictured at an IRA fundraiser event in 1995 or so, even shaking hands with Gerry Adams at his joke about "Trump cards") having the gall to criticise Khan as London Mayor now (however he worked as a human rights lawyer previously)

And just in case you want video before you obfuscate.

Adams is a member of Parliament for Christ's sake. Do you realize how many people took photos with him over the years? Or shook his hand?

Again, months after the fundraising event, a huge bomb at Canary Wharf London.

You've now been caught in a lie IC. The fundraiser in the video is for Sinn Fein, not the IRA. You've no proof that any money raised was directed to the IRA, hell you haven't even shown that Trump donated to Sinn Fein. All you've done is proven that Trump shook the hand of a man who has met every major American public figure at one time or another!

Furthermore, the Canary Wharf bombing was carried out by PIRA, not the group that Adams associated with in the 60's.

And you really think this is on par with Sadiq Khan's behavior? Totally absurd.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 13, 2017

truthatallcost said:
Rubbish. You read a story that quotes 1 unnamed lawyer, and conflated that with Turner's suspended ruling. Once again you're demonstrating your personal bias in favor of the 2 Khans.

Prove that Turner cited any supposed human rights ground in his ruling.

Post 393 from the BBC. Khan's own interview for the BBC

truthatallcost said:
~ Khan wasn't acting as a lawyer when he pressured the MPs to soften their stance on radicalism, he was MP for Tooting. Most of Khan's suspicious activity occurred as a politician, not during his days chasing ambulances.

What part of "there are other things you can chase Khan on" do you not understand? Are you now trying to get me to defend Khan where I don't care?

Why?

truthatallcost said:
~ You've now been caught in a lie IC. The fundraiser in the video is for Sinn Fein, not the IRA. You've no proof that any money raised was directed to the IRA, hell you haven't even shown that Trump donated to Sinn Fein. All you've done is proven that Trump shook the hand of a man who has met every major American public figure at one time or another!

Furthermore, the Canary Wharf bombing was carried out by PIRA, not the group that Adams associated with in the 60's.

And you really think this is on par with Sadiq Khan's behavior? Totally absurd.

Sinn Fein / IRA / PIRA all have the same cause and shared the same networks. There's nothing more stupid than posting recent pictures of Gerry Adams the Parliamentarian and ignoring Gerry Adams, spokesperson for IRA and PIRA activities.

1970's

2005 IRA ceremony.

Go and Google the IRA Army Council before you embarrass yourself any further. We are back to your basic lack of information and I don't care that the IRA means something else in the USA, a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation full stop.

truthatallcost · Jun 13, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
Post 393 from the BBC. Khan's own interview for the BBC

We can drop that too. 2 higher courts ruled that Judge Turner erred in his ruling. Judge Turner himself practically said as much, by suspending his own decision.

What part of "there are other things you can chase Khan on" do you not understand? Are you now trying to get me to defend Khan where I don't care?

I'm not IC. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that Khan

1. Has ties to radical Islam
2. Was voted into office anyway.

Which I think you've agreed to, so no harm done. You are more reasonable than I'd previously given you credit for. Hearty hand shake.

Sinn Fein / IRA / PIRA all have the same cause and shared the same networks. There's nothing more stupid than posting recent pictures of Gerry Adams the Parliamentarian and ignoring Gerry Adams, spokesperson for IRA and PIRA activities.

But you tried to say that Trump attended an 'IRA fundraiser, shook the IRA's leader's hand, and donated to the IRA'. Which I've proven to be false.

1. Adams was speaking on behalf of Sinn Fein
2. Trump didn't attend an IRA fundraiser
3. No proof exists of Trump ever donating to the IRA
4. Gerry Adams has appeared in photographs alongside Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Jeremy Corbyn. And they aren't IRA supporters because of it, are they?

1970's

2005 IRA ceremony.

Go and Google the IRA Army Council before you embarrass yourself any further. We are back to your basic lack of information and I don't care that the IRA means something else in the USA, a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation full stop.

I'm not Gerry Adams' defense lawyer. I have no interest in promoting him here. I do however say emphatically that you haven't proven any connection between Donald Trump and the IRA. If you think every person who has met Gerry Adams is a supporter of the IRA, then I'd recommend bed rest and medication for you.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 13, 2017

truthatallcost said:
We can drop that too. 2 higher courts ruled that Judge Turner erred in his ruling. Judge Turner himself practically said as much, by suspending his own decision.

No, David Blunkett as Home Secretary appealed and that was upheld. That appeal against Farrakhan's freedom of speech was quashed but the appeal to reapply the ban was because Article 10 allows free speech to be restricted "for the prevention of disorder". The British govt argued (successfully in court) that Farrakhan's speech would cause disorder.

Basic research.

truthatallcost said:
~ Khan

1. Has ties to radical Islam

In the case of Louis farrakhan's appeal against the ban, no he does not. All other issues are not part of what I have been arguing, that's for anyone else who wishes to argue that.

truthatallcost said:
~ 2. Was voted into office anyway.

Worse people have been voted into office both in the USA (like Trump) and here (Bobby Sands / Neville Chamberlain etc)

truthatallcost said:
~ But you tried to say that Trump attended an 'IRA fundraiser, shook the IRA's leader's hand, and donated to the IRA'. Which I've proven to be false.

No you haven't. You simply demonstrated that you know nothing about the IRA and Sinn Fein at that time.

truthatallcost said:
~ I do however say emphatically that you haven't proven any connection between Donald Trump and the IRA. If you think every person who has met Gerry Adams is a supporter of the IRA, then I'd recommend bed rest and medication for you.

You can fool yourself for all I care, just don't put false words into my mouth.