Trump's Fake News concerning London US Embassy

[Roy]

Apparently they make it so "clear" that you had to spin like a top to dismiss what the sources actually said.

No, I just had to read your sources rather than skimming the headlines:



I suggest you read them yourself.

[Mountain Man]

No, I just had to read your sources rather than skimming the headlines:



I suggest you read them yourself.

Pulling a single line out of context from a report that offers a balanced perspective somehow refutes the entire report? Is that how this works?

You claim to have to read Breitbart's coverage, so how is it possible that you missed this right at the top of the article:

Source: Breitbart

On January 14, 2014, The London Times reported that numerous murders and rapes are not reported in these no-go zones because of local justice systems. Chief Inspector of Constabulary Tom Winsor confirmed why police officers do not respond in some neighborhoods:
Muslim Patrol groups often regulate no-go zones. In this video, one group can be seen taking alcohol from people and scolding women to cover their bodies...

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...nted-on-video/

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Whoever wrote the article presumably also lives in the city (it reads like an eye-witness report).

It doesn't. Eye-witness reports rarely include details of events happening kilometres apart.

[Roy]

Pulling a single line out of context from a report that offers a balanced perspective somehow refutes the entire report? Is that how this works?

When the contents of the cited material do not match the surrounding text that refutes the report.

Contrary to your claim, I did not miss the start of the article. But since it is just a claim by the Breitbart writer that is not only unsupported, but contradicted by the source he is citing, there is no reason to believe it. The cited source is also wrong, and trivially so, because every city in the Midlands has at least one police station in it, so there are no cities where the police never go.

But even if Brietbart's article were 100% true, you are still wrong, because London is not a city in the Midlands.

[Mountain Man]

When the contents of the cited material do not match the surrounding text that refutes the report.

It doesn't. Eye-witness reports rarely include details of events happening kilometres apart.

Because there can't have been multiple eyewitnesses, am I right?

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me now. That's probably how I should treat your posts from now on.

[Leonhard]

Whoever wrote the article presumably also lives in the city (it reads like an eye-witness report).

Well lets put the cards on the table.

1) The source doesn't call the area a no-go zone.

2) The events were about 30-40 youths rebelling in a shopping center, trashing the place. During one weekend. And a smaller case of arson in the following weekend, by either an individual or a much smaller group.

3) The police were there, and there is a police presence in that part of the city. I can personally tell you that lately, that police presence has only grown bigger. So the idea that this is a place police don't dare go is opposite to the truth. You're more likely to find police out there, than at other parts of the city.

4) The emergency services were there as well, there are zero reports of emergency services unable, or unwilling to go that part of the city.

5) Its an area mixed with both immigrants and non-immigrants. Though there are a lot more immigrants there than in any other part of the city.

I live in this city. I can go through that part of the town. I've shopped there. Friend I know live there.

That doesn't sound like a no-go zone to me.

[Roy]

When the contents of the cited material do not match the surrounding text that refutes the report.

Try reading what I wrote.

Because there can't have been multiple eyewitnesses, am I right?

There could and would have been multiple eyewitnesses, but since you are apparently citing something written by a single person, rather than multiple people, it can't be an eyewitness report.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me now. That's probably how I should treat your posts from now on.

I'm beginning to think you're even stupider than I thought before, and will treat your posts accordingly.

But even if Brietbart's article were 100% true, you are still wrong, because London is not a city in the Midlands.

I'm not surprised you deleted this part from your response.

There are no 'no-go' zones in London. Your sources about Stockholm, Malmo, Paris and Birmingham are utterly irrelevant to your claim about London - but you keep citing them anyway.

Just how stupid are you?