# Manchester #SocialMediaPlacation



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

online print screen


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm waiting for the "love conquers fear" music festival.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Number 6 1/2. Sing Kumbaya while Rome burns


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I'm waiting for the "love conquers fear" music festival.


The utterly heartless UK media televised a grief stricken, and wholly inarticulate, mother who had lost her young child in this latest Islamist atrocity beseeching all and sundry 'don't let my daughter be a victim'. Without appearing callous - that ship has already sailed and all the endlessly retweeted #aCityUnited twaddle won't change a thing.

.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ if the reports this far are accurate, this appears to be a family affair with dad and brother in on the plot. The countless arrests made also suggest this was no "lone wolf". 

To say this is a tragedy would be cowardly. As though dismissing it as if an earthquake killed 20 some kids. For all intents and purposes, this appears to be one of those family western pols and bureaucratic dolts love to show off, claiming how they are just seeking a better life. Well, we can see what that better life entailed. 

Islam is a religion and culture that is incompatible with the west and liberal ideals.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

BBC News.

1. Explosion - could be a balloon popping. 

2. Explosion confirmed - could have been anyone.

3. Islamist confirmed- could have been a lone wolf.

4.Terror cell confirmed - substitute any mention of Islam with 'extremist'.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Islam has a problem. Academics and touchy feely folks can hand wring all they want about "root causes". Meanwhile, kids at a concert get blown away by some primitive screw heads with bolts and nails. Are we ever going to call a spade a spade or continue with linguistic gymnastics to avoid hurting feelings?

God's comfort to England and those affected.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

My partner's nephew was toppled by the blast but, fortunately, was positioned just outside the range of shrapnel. 

Several of the recent arrests were made within walking distance of my flat.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

And like clockwork.....

Ariana Grande vows to return to Manchester: 'We won't let this divide us'
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...rn-to-manchester-wont-let-this-divide-us.html

"We will never be able to understand why events like this take place because it is not in our nature, which is why we shouldn't recoil," she said. "We will not quit or operate in fear. We won't let this divide us. We won't let hate win."


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It is in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than Islam generally, that can be held responsible for all the atrocities committed in recent years, supposedly in the name of Allah. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Boko Haram, Jabhat al-Nusra and Isil have all been inspired directly by this militant sect whose wish is to recreate the social order of eighth-century Baghdad.
Blaming muslims in general for the crazed ideals of a few fanatics is doing the work of those fanatics for them.
Every effort should be made to stamp out the Muslim Brotherhood, but widening the approach to muslims generally would be utterly futile and counter-productive.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ not trying to stamp it out. Just stay the hell in their own God forsaken countries and let them practice whatever means of barbarism their religion dictates.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

And now Egypt today... What the hell is wrong with these sick bastards?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ not trying to stamp it out. Just stay the hell in their own God forsaken countries and let them practice whatever means of barbarism their religion dictates.


That is what they are/were doing, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Nigeria etc. So far, the USA and its allies have been attempting, for better or worse, to intervene and put a stop to it.
As for keeping them in their own countries, it's about two generations too late for that.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Perhaps, but it's not too late to start. 

Also, this traveling between the west and these terrorist breeding grounds that pass for countries needs to come to an end. Why someone would flee a country and ask for asylum and then travel back and forth to it is beyond me. 

I watch the news and see many of the so called refugees are able bodied young men. They should stay and fight for their country.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gotta buy more drones...lots and lots of drones! Force seems the only thing the muslim extremists understand.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

My problem with those Muslims who are a part of the peaceful section of the religion is that they are so very silent about the terrorists. It appears that they are afraid to speak up either in fear of the not so peaceful retaliation, which, of course, puts the lie to the "religion of peace" pronouncements or they are quietly allowing what is referred to as the extremist branch of the religion to take over Islam, which, again, puts a lie to that statement.

I am completely unable to fathom remaining silent about this type of barbarity. I repeatedly spoke out against both the IRA, INLA and the UVC even while in Ireland. You don't just sit quietly and allow that sort of repeated atrocity to occur without crying out against it.

Many years ago, I read "The Haj" by Leon Uris and formed an early opinion about the culture and, sadly, nothing since has changed it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I've long believed that such peaceful muslims are actually apostates from the true religion. They are the extremists. It appears to be a rather moderate view in the Islamic world that infidels must be put to the sword.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tda003 said:


> My problem with those Muslims who are a part of the peaceful section of the religion is that they are so very silent about the terrorists. It appears that they are afraid to speak up either in fear of the not so peaceful retaliation, which, of course, puts the lie to the "religion of peace" pronouncements or they are quietly allowing what is referred to as the extremist branch of the religion to take over Islam, which, again, puts a lie to that statement.
> 
> I am completely unable to fathom remaining silent about this type of barbarity. I repeatedly spoke out against both the IRA, INLA and the UVC even while in Ireland. You don't just sit quietly and allow that sort of repeated atrocity to occur without crying out against it.
> 
> Many years ago, I read "The Haj" by Leon Uris and formed an early opinion about the culture and, sadly, nothing since has changed it.


In the UK, there have been more than a few instances of imams and others speaking out against the terrorists. In general, however, the muslim communities here do not engage greatly with the wider population and are rather inward-looking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28270296

The IRA terrorists of the 1970s and 80s were Catholics to a man, but I do not recall anyone here blaming their outrages on Catholicism or the Catholic community.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I wish people would be intellectually honest and not continue to compare Islamic terrorists to the IRA. I'm not an apologist for the IRA. Just saying that drawing such comparisons is dishonest.

The political and strategic motives were wholly different. The IRA was not an existentialist threat to the west or to Anglicanism.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Nor were they strapping on bomb vests and running into Anglican churches or blowing up concerts.
> 
> I wish people would be intellectually honest and not continue to compare Islamic terrorists to the IRA. I'm not an apologist for the IRA. Just saying that drawing such comparisons is dishonest.


The IRA committed all manner of atrocities - just spend some time googling if you don't believe me - different in some respects to the Islamic terrorists, but highly comparable in that they were utterly callous and seemingly quite happy to blow up and maim children, pregnant women and people going about their everyday lives. Horses too. I'm at a loss as to what measure of 'intellectual dishonesty' is involved in making this comparison. In both Northern Ireland and the mainland the IRA and other nationalist groups targeted army and security forces and they targeted 'innocent civilians', though I find the distinction rather tenuous as the victims were all, by and large, 'innocent'. They also exploded a massive device in Manchester 21 years ago, if further comparison is needed.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

tda003 said:


> My problem with those Muslims who are a part of the peaceful section of the religion is that they are so very silent about the terrorists. It appears that they are afraid to speak up either in fear of the not so peaceful retaliation.


If you think about it, it is the same phenomenon as we see with how minorities deal with black-on-black crime.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That the IRA were Catholics was incidental to their cause but Irish people generally were certainly subjected to blame and treated with some suspicion in those days.

The IRA were broadly motivated by a desire that England might cease interfering with their homeland. 

What is it that motivates the Islamist?

BTW: no-one lost their life when the IRA bombed Manchester. 90 minutes advance warning was provided.

.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> That the IRA were Catholics was incidental to their cause but Irish people generally were subjected to blame and treated with some suspicion.
> 
> The IRA were broadly motivated by a desire that England might cease interfering with their homeland. What is it that motivates the Islamist?


Quite seriously, they are troubled and immature young men who experience difficulty finding girlfriends.

Not by any means an excuse of course.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Come come, my dear fellow. Islam motivates the Islamist.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> The IRA committed all manner of atrocities - just spend some time googling if you don't believe me - different in some respects to the Islamic terrorists, but highly comparable in that they were utterly callous and seemingly quite happy to blow up and maim children, pregnant women and people going about their everyday lives. Horses too. I'm at a loss as to what measure of 'intellectual dishonesty' is involved in making this comparison. In both Northern Ireland and the mainland the IRA and other nationalist groups targeted army and security forces and they targeted 'innocent civilians', though I find the distinction rather tenuous as the victims were all, by and large, 'innocent'. They also exploded a massive device in Manchester 21 years ago, if further comparison is needed.


You caught me before I fully formed my thoughts and hit reply hastily. A forensics error.

It was a nationalist fight, not a catholic vs. Protestant fight. Like shaver said, the religious angle was incidental.

Not so in the current case. Radical Muslims are in a sense like Trotskyist communists.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868392095161229313
Manchester chief of police accepting & posing with the Koran after the Manchester attack. 
This book is the reason there was an attack.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Langham said:


> Quite seriously, they are troubled and immature young men who experience difficulty finding girlfriends.
> 
> Not by any means an excuse of course.


Sadly we cannot turn back the clock to the mid to late 1960's and commingle those Saigon hookers, all claiming to be virgins and promising to "love you long time" for $5, with the lonely, frustrated young idiots to which you refer. Just think, for paltry sum of $105 the wannabe Jihadists could get their promised 21 virgins without committing an atrocity against their fellow man! :icon_scratch:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

What a disturbing photo! I assume that the Manchester chief of police is not an elected position. Otherwise, he should be getting his resume in order.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> What a disturbing photo! I assume that the Manchester chief of police is not an elected position. Otherwise, he should be getting his resume in order.


Senior police are not elected to their position here. In any event, his force appears to have done a workmanlike job in uncovering and arresting those behind the attack, despite untimely interventions by the New York Times/FBI.

Seriously, without engaging with all communities, the police would not get the intelligence they need.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Sadly the British Police are completely infiltrated by , and have sold out to the invaders.










That this comes from the same police force responsible for Rotherham, where 1,400 white girls were systematically raped by Muslims speaks volumes.



> Happy Ramadan to everyone celebrating across South Yorkshire, including our officers and staff #RamadanMubarak #Ramadan2017


The replies to this tweet show how far the police have fallen in public opinion.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868172464693661696


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The desire to appear tolerant seems to override the instinct for self preservation. Here as well as abroad. I really don't know what more it would take. 

I'd love to say that one day something heinous will happen and wake us up, but I'm not sure what's left.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Frankly regardless of which side of the pond one might be considering, these days the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Functioning in a law enforcement capacity in this day and age is a lose:lose proposition! Blame the media, blame the liberal left and/or the militant right, but the bottom line is we all lose!


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

SG_67 said:


> The desire to appear tolerant seems to override the instinct for self preservation. Here as well as abroad. I really don't know what more it would take.
> 
> I'd love to say that one day something heinous will happen and wake us up, but I'm not sure what's left.


It's gone far beyond "tolerance" now.
We're in a death spiral here.

Police anger over ban on arrests during Ramadan


> Manchester Police have been told not to arrest Muslims at prayer times during the holy month of Ramadan.
> The order is said to have angered a number of officers in the Greater Manchester force.
> An internal email listing prayer times has been sent to officers who have been asked not to execute arrest warrants during prayer times for reasons of religious sensitivity.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> My partner's nephew was toppled by the blast but, fortunately, was positioned just outside the range of shrapnel.
> 
> Several of the recent arrests were made within walking distance of my flat.


Are you moving to a new neighborhood? Like the other side of town?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Example of how they are working, good cop bad cop working to the same end, the Islamic world. I've heard that they control text books for American schools, now. A little bit here, a little bit there, until they have taken over. So, the volient ones are distracting us from the peaceful ones, which are quietly changing America's thinking, not to mention Europe.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> Are you moving to a new neighborhood? Like the other side of town?


In many English cities, Manchester included, the more affluent areas bump up against the less desirable areas. Presumably this is an inevitable result of gentrification.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I wonder if anyone is curious as to why the west has flourished while the east has stagnated and remained backwards. 

It's only through appropriation of western ideals that it has even a connection with modernity. It's not something derived at organically. Perhaps the culture is incapable of it.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I wonder if anyone is curious as to why the west has flourished while the east has stagnated and remained backwards.


This is well understood: the rise of Ash'arism in around the 13th century.

Pretty much 100% of middle-eastern terrorists are Salafists, a fundamentalist Sunni sect, and they too are Ash'arites.

A review of Ash'arism, its political origins, and the Salafi movement will make you an expert on Salafist terrorism (courtesy of intelligence colleagues of mine who specialize in the field.)

That's actually what all this is: Salafist terrorism, not "Islamic" terrorism per se. "Islamic" is too large a category to be operationally useful: while it's not well known how many Salafists there are (it's not exactly a part of the world that takes a census), it's probably about 5% or so of the 1.6 billion Muslims... though it IS dangerously on the rise (as the success of Salafist candidates in recent Egyptian elections attest.)

DH


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I wonder if anyone is curious as to why the west has flourished while the east has stagnated and remained backwards.
> 
> ...


I am. The Arab world was once far in advance of our own in learning; even now, as any visitor can readily tell, southern Spain is only a shadow of what it was under the Moors. The Spaniards won it back by a combination of force and deceit, eventually replacing a once thriving and quite liberal society with the Inquisition. However, progress since then certainly seems to have bypassed much of the Middle East.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ This notion that the Arabs and the Islamic world were far ahead of the west at one time is one that has been debunked. I'll let you do your own homework on this.

The notion that the "dark ages" were an age of ignorance have also been debunked. Classical Greek and Roman learning were kept alive in the West. Knowledge was built upon and the Western system of the University was established. Science, literature and learning were advanced. 

While the Islamic world certainly benefited from it's engagement with the West, it really stagnated during the same time. The West between the 9th century and the 15th century grew and advanced radically, where as during the same period, not much significantly occurred in the Islamic world. This fact became painfully obvious to the Ottoman's at the Battle of Lepanto. 

That was then. This is now. Christendom and the West had it within them to reform and to advance. They were able to self correct. Islam and the culture it has spawned have not. Even now, the middle east is wholly dependent on the West for it's technology.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The flourishing of learning and culture during the early Islamic period, corresponding to the period of Western history almost universally recorded and known as the Dark Ages, has certainly not been 'debunked'. It is generally recognised that, in almost all areas of learning and culture.,from medicine to algebra, poetry to economics, the Middle East was in advance of the West during that period. Indeed there would be difficulty in explaining the enormous territorial expansion of the caliphate during that period without acknowledging its superiority in learning and technology. The relics of that age are preserved in museums and libraries throughout the West and elsewhere. 
The subsequent decline of the Middle East is also well understood.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

I have great difficulty separating "good" terrorists from "bad" terrorists. If you blow up innocent people to promote your "just cause", you're a terrorist. Plain. Simple. Unvarnished.

I am also not overlooking the UVC (Ulster Volunteer Constabulary), who targeted Irish Catholics.

Let's stop splitting hairs. Which is more justified in killing your loved ones?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> ^ The flourishing of learning and culture during the early Islamic period, corresponding to the period of Western history almost universally recorded and known as the Dark Ages, has certainly not been 'debunked'. It is generally recognised that, in almost all areas of learning and culture.,from medicine to algebra, poetry to economics, the Middle East was in advance of the West during that period. Indeed there would be difficulty in explaining the enormous territorial expansion of the caliphate during that period without acknowledging its superiority in learning and technology. The relics of that age are preserved in museums and libraries throughout the West and elsewhere.
> The subsequent decline of the Middle East is also well understood.


It advanced because Christendom was not as unified.

As for their advancements in other fields, this was largely due to the assimilation of learning and knowledge already advanced by the Greeks and as other cultures. Christians continued the practice under the Ottomans and served as their physicians, tutors and scientists. Christians translated the works of the Greeks for the Ottomans. It was western shipbuilding technology that allowed the Ottomans to be able to even compete with the west on the seas.

Then, as in now, Islam depended on the west for its advancement.

All cultures are capable of producing and developing technology. The word algebra itself is Arabic. Of course the question remains, what did they do with it. Not much really. Islam seems to lack an internal mechanism for self awareness that allows for it to advance its culture.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

tda003 said:


> I have great difficulty separating "good" terrorists from "bad" terrorists. If you blow up innocent people to promote your "just cause", you're a terrorist. Plain. Simple. Unvarnished.
> 
> I am also not overlooking the UVC (Ulster Volunteer Constabulary), who targeted Irish Catholics.
> 
> Let's stop splitting hairs. Which is more justified in killing your loved ones?


Not to be too much of a pedant, but there was no such thing as the UVC.
There was the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) who were the police until they changed their name to PSNI.
There were assorted unionist/loyalist terrorist paramilitary groups: UVF, UDA / UFF, Red Hand Commando etc...


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

I stand corrected. The actual name is UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force), a paramilitary Ulster loyalist force. I expect that Googling it would yield its history. Although officially disbanded around 1996 (?), some members may still be active.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

One person, an ex-muslim, said they believe that all will go to hell by default. The only way around this is to die for Islam. A very conditional religion. 

Looks like lots of terrorist are going to hell. Osama bin Laden certainly didn't put himself out for a target. Hiding, as he did, certainly put him in hell, no matter how he was killed. Hiding was certainly not putting himself out to die for Islam. So many terrorist are afraid to die for the religion. So, why are they involved? Just because one is born in to a religion doesn't mean one has to stay with it. 

Christianity is about grace, peace, love, and justice.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Not unlike many Christians, Muslims believe in a final day of judgement when the deceased go either to hell or to heaven. This is usually taken to be determined by the balance of good to bad deeds in a person's life. 

However, there is an important codicil, in that warriors who die fighting in the cause of God go immediately to heaven. It has been reported that terrorists such as the Manchester bomber believe this arrangement will apply to them, although how such deeds are reconciled with normal concepts of good and bad has not been explained.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Boy are they in for a surprise!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> ^ Not unlike many Christians, Muslims believe in a final day of judgement when the deceased go either to hell or to heaven. This is usually taken to be determined by the balance of good to bad deeds in a person's life.
> 
> However, there is an important codicil, in that warriors who die fighting in the cause of God go immediately to heaven. It has been reported that terrorists such as the Manchester bomber believe this arrangement will apply to them, although how such deeds are reconciled with normal concepts of good and bad has not been explained.


The religion dictates what is good and bad and that doesn't always jibe with the West's notion of such values.

As for how it can be reconciled, it's easy; the killing of the infidel is always good.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Be safe, Mr. Shaver.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"Some 60,000 brave and defiant fans have joined Ariana Grande at her One Love concert at the Old Trafford Cricket Ground as they stand together in the face of terrorism and pay tribute to those killed in terror attacks"

Horseshit.

Subpar pop music from insincere dimwits seeking the validation promised by charitable associations along with an emptyheaded audience of self-satisfied participants to a spectacle of vapid nonsense, all trumpeting virtue signalling via their respective social media accounts, will not change a single thing.

These cretins are, almost, as reprehensible as the bombers themselves.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I wholeheartedly agree! The sad fact is that before the switch was even flipped on this concert, another act Islamic terrorism has occurred.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

What is the story with the numbskull mayor of London? I agree our president has problems but this guy was just on the national news saying "there's no reason to be alarmed". Well, ok, maybe Londoners shouldn't arm themselves - if they could - but dude, you've got a problem that platitudes at a press conference wont solve neither will the airhead pop singers. Get your head out of the sand.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

Shaver said:


> "Some 60,000 brave and defiant fans have joined Ariana Grande at her One Love concert at the Old Trafford Cricket Ground as they stand together in the face of terrorism and pay tribute to those killed in terror attacks"
> 
> Horseshit.
> 
> ...


I would cut the participants some slack - apparently many are quite young.

However I agree in regards to the "artists". Rest assured they likely protected by Israeli mercenaries and never experience danger like the average person walking the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It is worthless to shoot a suicide bomber after the fact. So, arm ourselves with what!? 

Good deeds sometimes changes people. If it is years before the person comes to their senses the cost of damages is not worth it, hence the death penalty. Some take advantage of good deeds shown them, and only get worse. 

Shrinks are saying sparing the rod is right. They are as far in quack territory as can be gotten. 

The purpose of the death penalty is more than justice. It is also to prevent the rot from spreading.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Subpar pop music from insincere dimwits seeking the validation promised by charitable associations along with an emptyheaded audience of self-satisfied participants to a spectacle of vapid nonsense, all trumpeting virtue signalling via their respective social media accounts, will not change a single thing.


One of your absolute greatest sentences ever, Shaver. Straight-up, spot-on gospel!
By the way, Shaver... if you guys could do us a bit of a favor and keep Ms. Grande over there. That would be a BIG help to us.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Shaver* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1834510#post1834510
Subpar pop music from insincere dimwits seeking the validation promised by charitable associations along with an emptyheaded audience of self-satisfied participants to a spectacle of vapid nonsense, all trumpeting virtue signalling via their respective social media accounts, will not change a single thing.



drlivingston said:


> One of your absolute greatest sentences ever, Shaver. Straight-up, spot-on gospel!
> By the way, Shaver... if you guys could do us a bit of a favor and keep Ms. Grande over there. That would be a BIG help to us.


^^ ditto on the statement You have my compliments also.

Yes, keeping Ms. Grande over there would be a big help. Now if we could just get our Canadian friends to take back Justin Bieber.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

blue suede shoes said:


> Now if we could just get our Canadian friends to take back Justin Bieber.


Canada is currently dealing with another Justin who is even more annoying. Unfortunately, he also happens to be the Prime Minister.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Shooting a suicide bomber after the fact is wasted energy. Shooting a living bomber after the fact, however, does ease the problem of recidivism. However, in a country without firearm ownership (generally), the issue is moot.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I would think that once the vipers are already in ones midst, it's a matter of time and nearly impossible to capture them. 

One thing that does surprise me, though, is the rapidity with which arrests were made. Were these people already known to the police?


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Although I don't keep a close watch on the statistics, it seems that most of these terrorists are already on the various countries watch lists long before they act. Therefore I'm not sure what the watch lists are for except to say, "Look! We're idiots. We watched 'em, just not too well."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"F*ck you - I'm Millwall!"

English football fan takes on Islamists. :thumbs-up:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/la...rner-Millwall-FC-lion-of-london-bridge-victim

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

A real hero. I'm very impressed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Apparently these guys were on a reality show titled something like the Jihadi Next Door. 

Setting aside what may or may not pass as entertainment, not even going on TV and waving the ISIS flag is enough to at least invite some scrutiny. 

We chuckle and sneer at mid-century westerners for attempts at rooting out communists with chants of "never again" but I'd posit that These Islamists are as existential a threat to the west as communism ever was, perhaps even more as I'm not aware of many in the soviet bloc who were willing to commit suicide for the cause.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

They need to give that man a George Cross.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th.../shootings-iranian-parliament-khomeini-shrine

Just sitting on the train waiting for advanced sales of the benefit concert for this one.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th.../shootings-iranian-parliament-khomeini-shrine
> 
> Just sitting on the train waiting for advanced sales of the benefit concert for this one.


Good luck with that. :biggrin:
If it doesn't increase their net worth or media exposure, they avoid it like the plague. These self-indulgent, auto-tuned idiots prey on the weak-minded, godless hordes.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

If they'd just kill each other off as they were content to do historically, I'd stop thinking about them entirely and settle down to watch "Mork and Mindy" re-runs.

Alas, that plan doesn't seem to be in the cards.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I've long considered it a cruel joke by the God's to place such a vital and important natural resource in the hands of some of the most savage people on the planet.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Maybe if the West just took over the oil, the area (and thus jihadists) would revert back to its Stone Age tribal society without the ability to export.

It's easier to defeat a terrorist whose weapon becomes a hammer.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)




----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL, and so very well put!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ that was really funny!


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

At some point, the people must understand that the government is unable or unwilling to protect them from these attacks. 

And what are the options at that point? Having city streets patrolled by balaclava clad vigalanties? Living behind 9' walls, guards and barbed wire? Building steel door safe rooms in the houses of those who can afford such protection? Bullet proof cars for when we must leave our personal fortresses? Police check points on every street corner with police serving as on the spot judge, jury and executioner for all but a small elite? People fleeing to the countryside and leaving the chaos and mass casualties of the city streets behind? 

The irony is that much of the world already lives in a borderline chaotic police state. Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia....I have seen it all first hand and it is horrifying. We have been sold a bill of goods that globalization is simply about teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony and peace on earth. The reality is that it opens a cage door that unleashes barbaric forces and mass migration of less than liberal minded people that we are ill equipped to confront. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Over the past 20 years I've come to the conclusion that some cultures, and by extension religions, are at best incompatible with, and at worst hostile to, democracy. 

In fact, I would argue that democracy as we know it, at least as practiced in the English speaking world, is truly unique. I'm not one to tell other cultures and other peoples how to live and how to organize themselves. If the Taliban and other orthodox Muslim groups want to enforce girls not getting an education or any number of medieval practices, then so be it. Let them keep it in their lands and don't bring that nonsense over here.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

^Agreed.

Democracy needs some type of concept of national unity to survive as well as a general belief in the rule of law. There is a school of thought in the western world that seems to think that every national boundary carved out in the post colonial era is somehow cast in stone. Many of the "countries" that are the most unstable do not reflect any clear delineation of tribe, ethnicity or geography. Many were never "countries" at all prior to the Treaty of Versailles. Trying to keep the genies in these unstable bottles is simply futile no matter what system of government we try to impose on them. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

So many western leaders, nowadays, are saying the wrong things, and are accusing those who are saying the right things, and starting to make laws to stop those who say the right things that need to be said. 

For example, in Europe young ladies walking on streets being surrounded by young Muslims men who start to touch indecently and some finish with rape and being told by government officials it's the women's fault. Young women are being told by governments that they cannot enjoy the old Europe lifestyle that had always been theirs to enjoy. The Europeans are being told by there, now foolish, governments to change for the Muslims. This is completely wrong. Those who come to, whatever, foreign country, need to change. Never the other way around. 

Some of this liberalness comes from the Christian Bible, but the damaging parts has gone beyond what is in the Bible. The Bible teaches us to bend over so far and no further. The liberals are now taking away needed responsibility.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I blame so much of our acquiescent attitude on "white guilt." Because of our ancestor's indiscretions, we feel the need to be overly accommodating to other cultures, while ignoring our own. If you don't put the brakes on this societal erosion, I fear that our way of life will be irrevocably changed.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

^ +1
I simply fail to understand the logic of the left that denies the right of sovereignty to this nation (or any other).

I don't feel the need to take in hordes of the poor and wretched who arrive here illegally. It's not anyone's "right" to enter a country by any means they see fit simply because they like what we have.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ and the Supreme Court yesterday said as much.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Historically ill-informed*



SG_67 said:


> Apparently these guys were on a reality show titled something like the Jihadi Next Door.
> 
> Setting aside what may or may not pass as entertainment, not even going on TV and waving the ISIS flag is enough to at least invite some scrutiny.
> 
> We chuckle and sneer at mid-century westerners for attempts at rooting out communists with chants of "never again" but I'd posit that These Islamists are as existential a threat to the west as communism ever was, perhaps even more as I'm not aware of many in the soviet bloc who were willing to commit suicide for the cause.


"Never again" refers to the Holocaust. It is not a chant and has nothing to do with expressions of anti-communist sentiment.

SG_67,

You seem to lack a basic knowledge of the subjects about which you speak.

"Never again" refers to the Holocaust.

Red-baiting and anti-communist actions in the US go back more than a century.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> "Never again" refers to the Holocaust. It is not a chant and has nothing to do with expressions of anti-communist sentiment.
> 
> SG_67,
> 
> ...


Forgive my imprecision. I was not clear in my phrasing.

Those shouting "never again" were those snickering at others for calling out communists. Those same voices are now at work again as we call out jihadis and Islamic terrorists trying to equate the eradication of this scourge on western civilization to the work of Nazis.

Perhaps next time, rather than gleefully try to give a history lesson, you should ask what was meant.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Forgive my imprecision. I was not clear in my phrasing.
> 
> Those shouting "never again" were those snickering at others for calling out communists. Those same voices are now at work again as we call out jihadis and Islamic terrorists trying to equate the eradication of this scourge on western civilization to the work of Nazis.
> 
> Perhaps next time, rather than gleefully try to give a history lesson, you should ask what was meant.


SG_67,
You are right. In fact I was looking up the thread to apologize to you. Please excuse my snotty and unhelpful comment. Not only was it mean-spirited, it was non-productive in terms of fostering civil and enlightening discourse.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> SG_67,
> You are right. In fact I was looking up the thread to apologize to you. Please excuse my snotty and unhelpful comment. Not only was it mean-spirited, it was non-productive in terms of fostering civil and enlightening discourse.
> 
> Gurdon


No need to apologize but thank you nonetheless. We are all human.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The appeal of the Christmas market perplexes me somewhat but the herd seem rather taken with them and so I raise no objection. However, passing the Manchester Christmas market today I was rather put-out to perceive a plethora of paramilitary policemen patrollng the perimeter and packing powerful pieces. Few things sum up the spirit of Christmas quite so well as sub machine guns. 

God bless diversity!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Reading today that quite a number of Muslims are giving up that faith and turning to Christianity (those who have recently fled the middle east). Not all is bad, except the bad.

The Christmas spirit and machine guns is certainly not the Peace On Earth And Good Will To All Mankind as usual is it? For how much the progressives in America hate Christianity how much longer will Christmas be allowed? They are doing their evil best to remove anything of Christianity from the US. The assault upon Christianity has now come to Christians don't have a right to have it anymore. I'm hearing that more and more. The left doesn't want democracy anymore. Just what the left wants.


----------



## HeartMD (Feb 6, 2015)

Shaver said:


> The appeal of the Christmas market perplexes me somewhat but the herd seem rather taken with them and so I raise no objection. However, passing the Manchester Christmas market today I was rather put-out to perceive a plethora of paramilitary policemen patrollng the perimeter and packing powerful pieces. Few things sum up the spirit of Christmas quite so well as sub machine guns.
> 
> God bless diversity!


I suspect the show of force is directly related to the German Christmas market attack of last year and the concert attack this year. The terrorists find it's a good way to congregate Christians and kill them.


----------



## HeartMD (Feb 6, 2015)

WA said:


> Reading today that quite a number of Muslims are giving up that faith and turning to Christianity (those who have recently fled the middle east). Not all is bad, except the bad.
> 
> In the US or Europe? Do have any sources for this?


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

tda003 said:


> ^ +1
> I simply fail to understand the logic of the left that denies the right of sovereignty to this nation (or any other).
> 
> I don't feel the need to take in hordes of the poor and wretched who arrive here illegally. It's not anyone's "right" to enter a country by any means they see fit simply because they like what we have.


Well, this only goes so far. At least for those signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, there is a duty incumbent on member states not to return asylum seekers to the countries from whence they came where to do so would be to put them at a real and immediate risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, and those who can prove a well-founded fear of this must be allowed to stay. There are also, I believe, other treaty obligations specific to refugees, but the ECHR is the most visible statement of a right.

So you're right, it's nobody's right to enter a country because they like what we have (although really, it is at the moment within the EU), but it is their right not to be removed to their home country in certain circumstances common to those seeking asylum.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Well, this only goes so far. At least for those signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, there is a duty incumbent on member states not to return asylum seekers to the countries from whence they came where to do so would be to put them at a real and immediate risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, and those who can prove a well-founded fear of this must be allowed to stay. There are also, I believe, other treaty obligations specific to refugees, but the ECHR is the most visible statement of a right.
> 
> So you're right, it's nobody's right to enter a country because they like what we have (although really, it is at the moment within the EU), but it is their right not to be removed to their home country in certain circumstances common to those seeking asylum.


What an absurd thing for any nation to agree to.

No doubt white guilt is the source of much of this nonesense.

And speaking of nonsense, did anyone hear the Canadian PM comment on retuning ISIS fighters?

Good luck up north. You can keep him.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> What an absurd thing for any nation to agree to.
> 
> No doubt white guilt is the source of much of this nonesense.
> 
> ...


While I don't want to enter into political discussion, I'd suggest that you can see from the point of view of a nation's conscience why they would agree not to return people to countries in which they might be tortured from a humanitarian point of view.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> While I don't want to enter into political discussion, I'd suggest that you can see from the point of view of a nation's conscience why they would agree not to return people to countries in which they might be tortured from a humanitarian point of view.


My conscience will survive it. I'd prefer that over having communities if refugees for whom mutilating little girls and killing infidels is viewed as a step in the right direction.

In some countries, those doing the torturing and those being tortured are not all that different. Just a matter of who has the bigger guns. Let them sort it out for themselves.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DearJurisprudence said:


> While I don't want to enter into political discussion, I'd suggest that you can see from the point of view of a nation's conscience why they would agree not to return people to countries in which they might be tortured from a humanitarian point of view.


My conscience remains blissfully unpricked by the thought of denying aid to those who, were circumstance reversed, would not help me.

Further, and you may call me old fashioned, but, from a humanitarian point of view I tend to balk at the mass migration of sex offenders, suicide bombers and the whatnot.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> My conscience remains blissfully unpricked by the thought of denying aid to those who, were circumstance reversed, would not help me.
> 
> Further, and you may call me old fashioned, but, from a humanitarian point of view I tend to balk at the mass migration of sex offenders, suicide bombers and the whatnot.


Speculation. Inadmissible.

Though you may be able to select examples from the pack, to say that there is 'mass migration' of those types of people is for you to prove. The first hypothetical runs into similar difficulty, because circumstances happen not to be reversed.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I prefer to err on the side of compassion . . . and always have.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Speculation. Inadmissible.
> 
> Though you may be able to select examples from the pack, to say that there is 'mass migration' of those types of people is for you to prove. The first hypothetical runs into similar difficulty, because circumstances happen not to be reversed.


You may wish to prove that the examples from the pack, which you seem willing to acknowledge exist, are not symptomatic of the broader culture.

The first hypothetical encounters no difficulty due to circumstance for it would not be a hypothetical if they were reversed.

All of this aside, your 'voice' is becoming rather familiar. Japanese eh? I wonder.....


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> You may wish to prove that the examples from the pack, which you seem willing to acknowledge exist, are not symptomatic of the broader culture.
> 
> The first hypothetical encounters no difficulty due to circumstance for it would not be a hypothetical if they were.
> 
> All of this aside, your 'voice' is becoming rather familiar. Japanese eh? I wonder.....


No, I'm not Japanese. I'm English and split my time.

There is no need for me to prove anything. Of course there are bad people - there are in every society. However, you implied that those examples were symptomatic of the bulk of migrant refugees and it is for you to prove. Given the diversity and sheer number of refugees requiring aid, no sensible person would pay attention to - or, I suggest, make - such an implication without evidence.

The hypothetical is indeed a hypothetical, but a selfish one. The ECHR right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is unqualified, and I suggest that it is unreasonable to refuse to protect it just because you suspect - suspect, not know - that those that need it might not do the same for you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DearJurisprudence said:


> No, I'm not Japanese. I'm English and split my time.
> 
> There is no need for me to prove anything. Of course there are bad people - there are in every society. However, you implied that those examples were symptomatic of the bulk of migrant refugees and it is for you to prove. Given the diversity and sheer number of refugees requiring aid, no sensible person would pay attention to - or, I suggest, make - such an implication without evidence.
> 
> The hypothetical is indeed a hypothetical, but a selfish one. The ECHR right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is unqualified, and I suggest that it is unreasonable to refuse to protect it just because you suspect - suspect, not know - that those that need it might not do the same for you.


I see.

You may freely suggest although not know but I must know and never presume to suspect.

I must prove whilst you need not prove anything.

In which case then I am afraid that you will have to find someone else to quibble with.

Sayonara.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> I see.
> 
> You may freely suggest although not know but I must know and never presume to suspect.
> 
> ...


I need not prove because I haven't made an accusation. You have accused these people, now prove it.

When I suggest, I give my opinion on how convincing I find your accusation, which does not itself amount to an accusation requiring proof. I need not 'know' anything to be correct in saying that a gratuitous statement is, taken on its own, unconvincing.

If you know, why do you need to suspect? For suspicion is thinking without knowing. Pray, Shaver, tell us how you know!

So yes: you and not I must prove.

And yes, I may suggest, but why you need to suspect when you ostensibly know is unclear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Marvellous work, old boy. I have this image of you frothing at the mouth as you type.

Now was that a dreadful accusation, or suggestion, or suspicion or merely gratuitous statement? I am uncertain as to which - perhaps you can clarify?

At any rate, I take this opportunity to wish you an early Happy New Year!

Odds are your membership may no longer be active by 2018.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> Marvellous work, old boy. I have this image of you frothing at the mouth as you type.
> 
> Now was that a dreadful accusation, or suggestion, or suspicion or merely gratuitous statement? I am unclear as to which - perhaps you can clarify?
> 
> ...


Ah I see. I was sort of hoping you'd expand on what you said earlier about refugees being criminals. I guess not. Maybe they ought to be denied a fair hearing too.

If my membership is revoked for requesting a little substance from someone who'd sooner use this forum to attack the moral character of an entire group (or as many as 'symptomatic' implies) of vulnerable people than help them, I'll live with that. Was it not you that thought it incumbent on him to point out that a grieving mother was, of all things, 'wholly inarticulate'? Right you may have been, but would you say that to her face?

At any rate, if my membership is revoked for participating in discourse in 'The Interchange' without ad hominem attacks, name calling or the like, I doubt whether I'd have had a chance with the revoking moderator anyway. Indeed, your accusations appear to fly closer to the mark in making a degrading statement about an entire section of humanity. Its saving grace is only that the division of humanity you chose to insult is not defined by any of the protected characteristics in the forum rules.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

As someone who works with these issues on a regular basis, the best place to manage refugees/immigrants is in their home countries. Having Europe serve as a relief valve for the worlds misery is unsustainable and counter productive.

Those who left the country of their birth to serve IS are best dealt with abroad as opposed to allowing them to return home to spread their cancerous apocalyptic vision of the future.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The more I learn about the Islamic religion the less I want it around Europe, and the America's, not to mention other places. It seems to be a religion of violence and rape. There are a number that have left the violence of the middle east and the Islamic religion for Christianity. When I read of a nine year old girl being forced into a marriage and the seventy something year old "husband" rapes the little girl and she dies a few hours later, less than 24 hours, and that is okay, this is a religion that should Not exist. Sadly there are thousands of examples why this religion should not exist.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

I find it fascinating that a country birthed by refugees (the US) voted a xenophobe into power. Then again, the earlier refugees settled in, decimated the native population and took control of their land. Maybe Americans have a point.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

bernoulli said:


> I find it fascinating that a country birthed by refugees (the US) voted a xenophobe into power. Then again, the earlier refugees settled in, decimated the native population and took control of their land. Maybe Americans have a point.


Your point being? Yes, let's all live our lives as though this were 400 years ago. I wonder what else you'd be in favor of from that time?

By the way, continuing to be stunned, amazed or otherwise befuddled by the election of Donald Trump is the modern day equivalent of the washed up hippy who still wears a pony tail and talks about the "struggle". In other words, move on.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> *Your point being? Yes, let's all live our lives as though this were 400 years ago. I wonder what else you'd be in favor of from that time?*
> 
> By the way, continuing to be stunned, amazed or otherwise befuddled by the election of Donald Trump is the modern day equivalent of the washed up hippy who still wears a pony tail and talks about the "struggle". In other words, move on.


The opportunity to bulk buy first editions of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica hot off the presses?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> The opportunity to bulk buy first editions of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica hot off the presses?


You can get that on amazon now. Jeff Bezos invented a time machine. Elon Musk will build it once he's done with that ferkakte hyperloop.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

It is amazing how much the natives here lost. They were living in the stone age. Fought one another. Today they probably live in more peace with one another than before terrible white men showed up. Transportaion is far better. Phones, motorboats. Far better nets for fishing. Better clothes, houses, washing machines and dryers for clothes. They have electricity. Guns for hunting. Free houses. And the list goes on. Medical. Dental. Instead of cooking over a fire they have good cook stoves with ovens. And so on. They really did stumble over cultural changes. Neither whites or reds are perfect. I think they would be better off if they gave up the reservations and tribes. It is a loss the knowledge that they had wasn't ever written down. They can blame white men, but they should have traveled the world to discover there is far more about humans than white people and red people. There are still tribes that are being hurt by lack of knowledge, and it does not have to be that way. Even for whites the world is constantly changing and we need to keep up or lose. Every race is being drug into an unknown future.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Your point being? Yes, let's all live our lives as though this were 400 years ago. I wonder what else you'd be in favor of from that time?
> 
> By the way, continuing to be stunned, amazed or otherwise befuddled by the election of Donald Trump is the modern day equivalent of the washed up hippy who still wears a pony tail and talks about the "struggle". In other words, move on.


Move on? Isn't he entitled to be concerned about who will be in charge of the most powerful country in the world for the next few years if he wants to be?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Move on? Isn't he entitled to be concerned about who will be in charge of the most powerful country in the world for the next few years if he wants to be?


Are you an American? If not, it's really none of your concern, is it.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Are you an American? If not, it's really none of your concern, is it.


I'm English; we enjoy mocking the Americans because it distracts us from the state of our own country.

At any rate, one can be concerned at what doesn't affect him, and the suggestion that anyone who is not American has no right to an opinion on the politics there is fanciful. Let him be.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

As I mature, the more I believe that the American Revolution was a historical aberration.

I don’t know why my Anglo family left the Isles in the 1600s. My German family left the Heidelberg region in 1752 because the area had been decimated by the constant religious wars and the German British king was looking for Protestant settlers to form a buffer in the New World between the Protestant English southern colonies and Spanish Catholic Florida.

The American “melting pot” was created by geopolitical reality , a measurable counterpoint to the mythologized desire to be “free”. Ignoring contemporary geopolitics when planning immigration strategy would be at best careless at worst a slow suicide.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> I'm English; we enjoy mocking the Americans because it distracts us from the state of our own country.
> 
> At any rate, one can be concerned at what doesn't affect him, and the suggestion that anyone who is not American has no right to an opinion on the politics there is fanciful. Let him be.


Oh he's certainly free to state his opinions as much as I'm free to call him out for the absolute irrelevance of his opinions.

The OP lives in Brazil. I'll assume he's Brazilian. This is an absolute wreck of a country and an economy. There is racial and class discrimination in the country with far flung Favelas wherein mostly brown people live that would make the head of any American liberal spin.

Yet he finds time to opine on the American electorate and our choice to lead the country and how our country was founded.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Oh he's certainly free to state his opinions as much as I'm free to call him out for the absolute irrelevance of his opinions.
> 
> The OP lives in Brazil. I'll assume he's Brazilian. This is an absolute wreck of a country and an economy. There is racial and class discrimination in the country with far flung Favelas wherein mostly brown people live that would make the head of any American liberal spin.
> 
> Yet he finds time to opine on the American electorate and our choice to lead the country and how our country was founded.


Racial discrimination? Do you mean treating people and their opinions differently based on where their nationality or where they come from?

Isn't that exactly what you're doing to the OP?

Anyone can opine on the merits of one country's system over another. Even an American, it would seem.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DearJurisprudence said:


> I'm English; we enjoy mocking the Americans because it distracts us from the state of our own country.
> 
> At any rate, one can be concerned at what doesn't affect him, and the suggestion that anyone who is not American has no right to an opinion on the politics there is fanciful. Let him be.


Is that so? Though you may be able to select examples from the pack, to say that 'We English enjoy mocking Americans' is for you to prove.

Of course there are those who make mockery - there are in every society. However, you implied that this is symptomatic of the bulk of English people and it is for you to prove. Given the diversity and sheer number of English people, no sensible person would pay attention to - or, I suggest, make - such an implication without evidence.

Maybe they ought to be denied a fair hearing too.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> Is that so? Though you may be able to select examples from the pack, to say that 'We English enjoy mocking Americans' is for you to prove.
> 
> Of course there are those who make mockery - there are in every society. However, you implied that this is symptomatic of the bulk of English people and it is for you to prove. Given the diversity and sheer number of English people, no sensible person would pay attention to - or, I suggest, make - such an implication without evidence.
> 
> Maybe they ought to be denied a fair hearing too.


Fair enough, since I can't prove that, I'll rephrase; it's the sensible thing to do: _I_ enjoy it.

See? It really isn't hard.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Shaver said:


> Is that so? Though you may be able to select examples from the pack, to say that 'We English enjoy mocking Americans' is for you to prove.
> 
> Of course there are those who make mockery - there are in every society. However, you implied that this is symptomatic of the bulk of English people and it is for you to prove. Given the diversity and sheer number of English people, no sensible person would pay attention to - or, I suggest, make - such an implication without evidence.
> 
> Maybe they ought to be denied a fair hearing too.


Good to see it still irks you, by the way


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Good to see it still irks you, by the way


Despite your best efforts you are more tedious than irksome.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Racial discrimination? Do you mean treating people and their opinions differently based on where their nationality or where they come from?
> 
> Isn't that exactly what you're doing to the OP?
> 
> Anyone can opine on the merits of one country's system over another. Even an American, it would seem.


Yes well, I'll put up the merits of my country against Brazil's anytime.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Yes well, I'll put up the merits of my country against Brazil's anytime.


Do it if you must (petty though it may be), but don't let it interfere with your judgment of the OP, who was merely commenting on the politics in your country and making no childish attempt to 'put its merits up' against his own.

Incidentally, the horrific home-grown shootings we keep hearing come from your country, and that apparently have nothing to do with guns and the constitutional 'right' you have to them, might better be understood in a place whose unemployment and income inequality was so high as it is in the Favelas of Brazil. For a civilised country, it surprises me. I might say the same about the President condemning the press with violent cartoons on Twitter, or allegedly asking his lawyers if he can constitutionally pardon himself. You might not be so superior to these places you denigrate after all.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Do it if you must (petty though it may be), but don't let it interfere with your judgment of the OP, who was merely commenting on the politics in your country and making no childish attempt to 'put its merits up' against his own.
> 
> Incidentally, the horrific home-grown shootings we keep hearing come from your country, and that apparently have nothing to do with guns and the constitutional 'right' you have to them, might better be understood in a place whose unemployment and income inequality was so high as it is in the Favelas of Brazil. For a civilised country, it surprises me. I might say the same about the President condemning the press with violent cartoons on Twitter, or allegedly asking his lawyers if he can constitutionally pardon himself. You might not be so superior to these places you denigrate after all.


I beg to differ but we are.

By the way, I'm not going on here commenting on the internal politics of other countries. I don't really care how Brazilian choose to govern themselves. Nor the Chinese, Germans, French or Nigerians.

I'm always fascinated by the intense interest others who don't live here, take in our politics.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> I beg to differ but we are.
> 
> By the way, I'm not going on here commenting on the internal politics of other countries. I don't really care how Brazilian choose to govern themselves. Nor the Chinese, Germans, French or Nigerians.
> 
> I'm always fascinated by the intense interest others who don't live here, take in our politics.


Cool! It's good you take an interest and see the value of an outsider's perspective.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Cool! It's good you take an interest and see the value of an outsider's perspective.


Why should I care about an outsiders perspective? How does that affect me?


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Why should I care about an outsiders perspective? How does that affect me?


It doesn't, I just thought you were fascinated by it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> It doesn't, I just thought you were fascinated by it.


Just fascinated that people seem to expend more energy worrying about the goings on in other countries, especially when large swathes of their own population live in abject poverty and squalor.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> Just fascinated that people seem to expend more energy worrying about the goings on in other countries, especially when large swathes of their own population live in abject poverty and squalor.


Indeed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

DearJurisprudence said:


> Indeed.


In an effort to at least attempt to be a better person in 2018, no hard feelings regarding this exchange my friend. Have a happy new year.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> In an effort to at least attempt to be a better person in 2018, no hard feelings regarding this exchange my friend. Have a happy new year.


Likewise. Have a happy new year!


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Guns...the intellectual pistol that is brandished when foreigners want to take a pot shot at America.

Numbers matter...about 33,000 gun deaths per year in the good ol’ gun happy US of A.

Almost two thirds of all gun deaths in America are men committing suicide or police shootings of men under the “suicide by cop” category. End the male suicide epidemic in America and gun deaths drop by 2/3....in one shot. Why is this never reported? I wonder? Suicide is the 10th leading killer of Americans annually. Maybe male mental health is the problem and not guns? Maybe?

About 1000 folks were shot and killed by police last year. Most of these folks were men threatening the lives of officers or innocent citizens when they were shot. 

About 500 deaths annually are due to accidental discharge, again mostly men. Oops...

This leaves about 10,000 gun related homicides annually in a country of 323 million where there are about 40% of households with at least 1 gun and about 300 million guns in private hands. Yes 300 million. 

A disproportionate percentage of gun homicides in America happen in about 20 areas of concentrated urban poverty. Crime tends to happen in high crime areas. Strange that? Care to Guess the gender of most of the victims? 

In 2012 homicide fell out of the top 15 leading causes of death in the us. This is homicide with all weapons, not just guns. 

Oddly our National life expectancy rate dropped last year. Because of gun deaths? No. Opiate OD is the main factor.

Just food for thought. Enjoy.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Guns...the intellectual pistol that is brandished when foreigners want to take a pot shot at America.
> 
> Numbers matter...about 33,000 gun deaths per year in the good ol' gun happy US of A.
> 
> ...


Isn't suicide just Nature's way of telling you that you are nonviable?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

It's often an unfortunate permanent solution to a temporary problem. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> It's often an unfortunate permanent solution to a temporary problem.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


An organism that cannot recognise, or cope with, a temporary problem and instead opts for self-destruction would seem to qualify as nonviable.


----------



## DearJurisprudence (Dec 23, 2017)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Guns...the intellectual pistol that is brandished when foreigners want to take a pot shot at America.
> 
> Numbers matter...about 33,000 gun deaths per year in the good ol' gun happy US of A.
> 
> ...


The argument that homicide is somehow worse than suicide in gun regulation is ridiculous - one can kill with anything just as one can commit suicide with anything.

Saying that, since there are so many gun-related deaths in general, the amount of homicides looks small is ridiculous. What is relevant is comparison. There are between 50-60 gun homicides in the UK every year, compared with 8,124 in the US in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures. For us, having a population of 65,000,000 (rounded to the million), that's about 1 for every million people (actually slightly less). For you, going on 325,000,000 population rounded to the nearest million, that's 25 for every million.

In a country where guns are legal, the gun homicide rate is twenty-five times that of a country in which they are not. You may bring up knife crime (I am not aware of any statistics, but that idiot Alex Jones thinks he is). The difference would be that, here, knives are still illegal to carry - we have no constitutional right to the weapon whose menace plagues our society.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
A firearm is a tool...an inanimate object until it is taken up and into the hands of we humans. Guns have never killed anyone. People choose to do that. The problem is what is happening between our ears, not with the design of or with intrinsic nature of the tool chosen to commit the act! Substantially more people die from alcohol related automobile accidents and drug overdoses than do from being shot. Again, perhaps we should consider what is going on between the ears of we broken and fatally flawed humans. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Hockey Tom (Aug 10, 2016)

^^

Why do that, when it is far easier to point the finger at guns and their owners? It's not like any violence has ever occurred with an illegal firearm, or non-firearm weapons, or trucks...


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

DearJurisprudence said:


> The argument that homicide is somehow worse than suicide in gun regulation is ridiculous - one can kill with anything just as one can commit suicide with anything.
> 
> Saying that, since there are so many gun-related deaths in general, the amount of homicides looks small is ridiculous. What is relevant is comparison. There are between 50-60 gun homicides in the UK every year, compared with 8,124 in the US in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures. For us, having a population of 65,000,000 (rounded to the million), that's about 1 for every million people (actually slightly less). For you, going on 325,000,000 population rounded to the nearest million, that's 25 for every million.
> 
> In a country where guns are legal, the gun homicide rate is twenty-five times that of a country in which they are not. You may bring up knife crime (I am not aware of any statistics, but that idiot Alex Jones thinks he is). The difference would be that, here, knives are still illegal to carry - we have no constitutional right to the weapon whose menace plagues our society.


I believe your first paragraph enlightens more than I could ever hope to through argument.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> An organism that cannot recognise, or cope with, a temporary problem and instead opts for self-destruction would seem to qualify as nonviable.


A good point. Temporary, often self inflicted problems in my life have led me to pursue what in actuality are a thousand acts of slow suicide...and yet even in these self destructive periods, I saw myself still viable as a person. I think I must have realized that I could still cope and get to the other side, broken hearts can mend, people can forgive, the deepest wounds eventually heal and form scars. Maybe it was simply a matter of my maintaining perspective or having a friend at hand who helped me do so. Life can be transformed or redeemed by the simple act of keeping good company.

The problem with the trigger, as I see it, is that it condenses a lifetime of self abuse and loathing into a single terrible irreversable moment.

I sometime wonder if they are the brave ones and we are the cowards?

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

This past week looking on tumblr and came across one site. There where elementary school children were bringing rifles to class for show and tell. The pictures were probably from the 50s 60s. Nobody is afraid. In America, nowadays, there is a lot of artificial fear about guns. Those who have brought about this artificial fear have unstable minds. Because some kook does something foolish with a gun does not mean that the rest of us should give up our sound minds. The media is a washed with people who do not have sound minds. They are the people we should never take advice from, nor their followers, and like minded.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

On many Friday's while in high school, I would bring my shotgun to school and leave it in my car. When the last bell rang, my friends and I would drive out to the local farms where we would camp and hunt for the weekend. 

That was way back in time....1984-86. Today, I would be seen as a potential mass murderer. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Very few people commit suicide because of one reason. But, to many loses can add up to suicide. If to many reasons to live are forfeited what is left to live for. Hope removed over and over again can leave no hope for the future. Indeed the hearts desires are at stake here. We are more than robots. 
The dead poets society movie explains suicide well enough, even though it is in the back ground. Not saying there are not other reasons for suicide.


----------

