people who vent after these attacks to be despicable ****s. It's like they search social media for something offensive for them to make a song and dance about.
Printable View
people who vent after these attacks to be despicable ****s. It's like they search social media for something offensive for them to make a song and dance about.
It's a diversionary tactic. I nearly kicked my car radio in on the way into work listening to some mealy mouthed cünt claiming to be the 'Bishop of Manchester' attacking social media 'trolls' who were 'sowing the seeds of hatred' whilst telling us all what jolly good chaps his Allan pals were and how they wouldn't hurt a fly. :furious:
"They will not divide us." I've never seen the immediate aftermath of a nail bomb attack, but I'm guessing the results are pretty divisive to the human body.
The mad **** who does it is one thing. The people who encourage it are another. But all the people who know about it and do nothing are just as guilty and appear to get a free pass.
:nod: all this they won't win, they won't divide us, carry on as usual.
All very well to say. what about the dead wons? whoever 'they' are they won.
It also seems a strange way to deal with a problem is to ignore it and carry on with your life. This seems to be the approach. of course it's difficult to prevent but it seems a strange message.
I've just had a shouting match with someone with the old "we don't know who's done it yet". Of course we know and when we find out what are you going to do about it?
It's all the 'how can we stop this?' horseshît that bothers me. This sort of stuff could be stopped relatively easily by the introduction of a few emergency measures (the internment of everyone on a terrorist watch list and the shutting down of radicalising mosques for a start). But of course the hand-wringers would be the first to start whining about those measures.
People will say it's disproportionate, of course, but in doing so they ignore all the resources and effort that currently go into trying to stop these people and the sheer human and material cost of their actions. I strongly suspect you could round up fewer than 1,000 people tonight and cut your risk of this sort of attack by 95%. How is that disproportionate?
The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.
Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.
We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.
Indefinitely. I would obviously subject them to de-radicalisation/deprogramming in the hope of turning them into decent human beings, but where that seems impossible, I'd keep them locked up indefinitely since they are plainly a threat to innocent people.
As to the slim possibility of them being innocent - do you mean 'innocent' like Moazzam Begg who 'went on holiday' to Afghanistan and in a terrible mix-up ended up getting caught by coalition forces and put in Guantanamo? That sort of 'innocent'? I'm intensely comfortable with that possibility if it means preventing acts of terror on our streets.
Well I am from there and was naturally in the town that day to the attack is the bomb, the atomic bomb is the atomic bomb.
Anyhow, it was two detonated about half an hour later when the initial panic had calmed down somewhat and the army had began to organise themselves. It was the secondary event that killed the majority.
So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.
you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.
Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.
The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?
Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.
Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.
The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.
I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.
It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.
I sincerely hope you're right.
But I do think there has been a significant shift in recent weeks and it's more than a dead cat bounce. Quite simply people are no longer too embarrassed or ambivalent enough about him based on his media image to vote for him. If an unprecedented mobilisation of the youth vote also materialised, I don't think it's utterly improbable that he at least enters polling day with a potential path to victory.
Nah. Won't happen. This type of up and down is inevitable in an election campaign. The 'shift' you describe is illusory. There is absolutely no suggestion that Labour is capable of winning a single marginal that would be necessary for it to achieve victory. It isn't going to happen.
Fear not. You will wake up a happy man on June 9th. Trust your uncle b on this one. ;-)
I don't see that either. Considering the tools available to intelligence services and law enforcement these days, how do you stop a single person from blowing himself up in a crowd of people.
The only thing would be to stop the supply of such nutters, but unfortunately it takes only one ******* to do something like this.