T
The Green Heron
Guest
She isn't anti gun fellas. She did grow up in a different country than you. Might want to keep that in mind.
Last edited:
Terrorist attack in London
- Thread starter MadMardigan
- Start date
- Replies 215
- Views 8,068
Meckmeister
Member
The "workable approach" by Lisa May may be a day late, a dollar short and out of a job. Brits are voting this week, and she is now even up in the polls (down from 20 pts ahead before the Manchester bombing).
See post #77.
What I don't get in her answer is that on one hand she says an armed populace won't help, but then a few lines later says part of the answer is to arm the police.
I agree that with most individuals, simply handing them a gun isn't going to do much good. I've had more training than most of those people and depending on the circumstances, even I would be limited in my ability. One of the first things you learn or realize in force on force training is how difficult it is to respond even when you're expecting trouble. The fact is that when these guys decide to commit violence, someone is going to get hurt. That much is a given. On top of that, a gun is not going to stop a guy mowing people over with a three ton truck.
Having said that, I still do not believe that the answer is to disarm the populace, as the leftists want to do, presumably so that they can "feel" safe. I disagree with the premise of telling people to run and hide and to report it to some "authority". I think it is a mistake to put your safety in the hands of someone else, especially a "government". As @drypowder put it, that's just collectivist thinking. As this latest incident shows, even in a major metropolitan area that it on an alert level that is causing anal sphincter twitching, the response time is still nearly 10 minutes. The only thing that police can do is clean up after the event and investigate. Small comfort to those who hot hit. Any effective response needs to be immediate and yo that end people need to be aware and able wherever and whenever.
There are a couple of other take away items from this. One it's becoming quite a consistent trend that these acts of violence are being committed by the radicalized (?) offspring of muzzie immigrants; natural born citizens of these countries - yet they have not assimilated and harbor great hostility towards what is supposed to be their nation and people.
Two, it is also becoming very clear that the civilian legal systems are not geared to properly handle these types of cases. They were not designed to met justice to people who are willing and expect to die in the process of committing their acts. Similarly, the actions that can be taken against those who undoubtedly supported them are going to be limited in terms of what actual legal violation they're committed and this is really slippery slope type territory, ergo calls for regulating the Internet.
Three, for all its violation, the dragnet surveillance state may have identified these individuals, but it is not changing the outcome. Consequently, it is s violation without benefit.
This will not stop until overwhelming force is directed at the terrorists, their families, their commnities and their mosques. And after we scrape up whatever remains it should be shipped back to the place it came from. As to stopping an event like the recent ones in the UK, noway2 is right. Even if it happened here with a dozen of us nearby people will still be maimed and killed. But when the citizenry reaches a point where they start terminating the terrorists before the police show up it will send a message to the bad guys. And by that I mean the bad guys in Congress and Parliament. And that fact that people are still debating the refugee and immigration issues shows you how far we are from having the correct response. Something on the level of 9/11 will likely have to happen again before the sheep are awoken. This death by a thousand cuts strategy is certainly a wise one by the goat humpers.
Last edited:
I think you overlooked the part about US.gov incessantly meddling in their countries, planning coups, overthrowing secular governments, and inciting wars that have killed over a million people in the last 15 years or so.
But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.
The damn muslims have been trying to kill everyone, including other muslims who are different muslims from the other muslims for centuries before the US of A was even a thought. Maybe if we had killed alot more than a million or two over the last 15yrs this wouldn't be happening. It is going to come down to the world vs the muslims one day soon, I hope the world wins.
So because evil men and women will always be evil, and good people having the means to resist won't necessarily dissuade evil in the world, good people shouldn't have the means?
An armed populace may not stop every act of depravity thrown it's way. An armed Brit may or may not have stopped the van.
I would argue a Brit with a handgun stands a very good chance of stopping someone armed with a knife and may have saved some victims from injury or death.
You argue it won't solve the problem of extremism. What other problems might it solve?
Violent crime? Home break-ins? Rape?
So the government should get a mandate to arbitrarily deny and violate a portion of the Citizenry their Rights, with no due process, without a trial or the Right to see the evidence against them, to confront witnesses against them and provide their own witnesses on their behalf.
They should be imprisoned indefinitely and left to die.
Those who preach religious sermons we don't like (the Bible isn't just love and happiness, fwiw) should be rounded up and shown quickly to a violent death (interestingly enough, it was this sentiment that saw Britons colonizing North America).
Additionally, the police should be loosed upon one group of the Citizenry, given license to do anything and everything, whatever it takes - with little to no oversight and no accountability or culpability for their actions?
Are we still talking about a free society?
Your Dad evacuated an army which stood opposed to everything you said must be done in response to the war on terror.
I am not saying that one must ignore the evidence, ignore the problem and accept the violent acts of jihadis.
What I am saying is that being Free comes at a cost - not always exacted on soldiers. As for me, I would rather have the trials and inconveniences from having too much Liberty than those that come from having too little of it.
What you advocate, and what so many here have blessed through the 'Like' button will destroy Western Civilization far more quickly and much more permanently that some Third World sand people can ever hope to achieve.
What's the point of resisting the tyranny of a Caliphate if we embrace the tyranny of a western totalitarian regime?
Last edited:
centerofbrown
Happy to be here
Oh why am I not surprised!
CNN first airs this...
Then this comes out...
CNN first airs this...
Then this comes out...
Sorry, but this doesn't work for folks eager to die for a cause. Attacking just helps their recruiting. I think the only solution is to starve their cause and make them appear to be losers to folks that might be tempted to follow them.
To be clear, if we could just target the terrorists that'd be one thing, but when it expands to families, friends and mosques it fails.
Can't recall where so recently saw it, so I am not claiming this all my own. But the concept of "love will win!" Is a wonderful concept, and as a Christian I 100% believe it to be true.
I believe there are far more good people in the world. However, being "good" doesn't protect individuals. There were good people on the 9/11 planes trying to fight for control of the planes. During that recent stabbing here in the US there were "good guys" trying to fight evil. During each of the school shootings there were "good" teachers who threw themselves between the attackers and their students.
So yes, Good outnumbers evil. However in each of those cases evil triumphed for the simple fact that good was defanged prior. None of these "good guys" had an effective means to defend themselves.
So we have to ask, how many more "good people" have to throw themselves on the altar of sacrifice by absorbing bullets, knives, or explosions before we stop relying on "just goodness" to win.
As a Christian, violence to defend is >never< the first option. But it >is< an option. This thought around the world that "violence can't be an option" is misguided and deadly, as we have seen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe there are far more good people in the world. However, being "good" doesn't protect individuals. There were good people on the 9/11 planes trying to fight for control of the planes. During that recent stabbing here in the US there were "good guys" trying to fight evil. During each of the school shootings there were "good" teachers who threw themselves between the attackers and their students.
So yes, Good outnumbers evil. However in each of those cases evil triumphed for the simple fact that good was defanged prior. None of these "good guys" had an effective means to defend themselves.
So we have to ask, how many more "good people" have to throw themselves on the altar of sacrifice by absorbing bullets, knives, or explosions before we stop relying on "just goodness" to win.
As a Christian, violence to defend is >never< the first option. But it >is< an option. This thought around the world that "violence can't be an option" is misguided and deadly, as we have seen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This will be brief I'm in a rush.
Those who are of a mind to kill will use whatever is available as a weapon, be it knifes, assault rifle, bombs or a kitchen chair - if they are motivated enough they'll find a way.
My point about arming the police in the U.K. is simple, they have the weapons and the ability to train their officers - those same officers that get sent in to face the situation with nothing more than a truncheon quite often.
And if you are sending officers into protect civilians, expecting them to put their lives on the line then you have to offer them protection from frivolous litigation.
When I say arming the general population isn't the answer, it isn't, not in the U.K., unlike here we haven't grown up around firearms, the best outcome in a situation like this weekend would be someone would shoot their own foot, the worst is that a number of people would get shot - the most likely event is that the gun would be thrown at the attacker....not because the desire to defend is missing but the mindset is different.
Guns don't stop home invasions, rape or violent crime here why would you think it would be a miracle cure anywhere else?
I'm not anti gun by a long way but you can't apply US solutions to the U.K.
Politicians have spent so long and so much time accommodating those who seek to destroy the existing way of life that they have forgotten those, who like my Dad, fought for the freedom that other seek to take away.
And finally no I'm not advocating rounding up all Muslims and sticking em in a cage, those who are involved in acts of terror, in any way, those people should be removed from society and dealt with according to the rules of war, because unlike their treatment of prisoners I'd like to think most of us have humanity .
Apologies for the rubbish wording
Those who are of a mind to kill will use whatever is available as a weapon, be it knifes, assault rifle, bombs or a kitchen chair - if they are motivated enough they'll find a way.
My point about arming the police in the U.K. is simple, they have the weapons and the ability to train their officers - those same officers that get sent in to face the situation with nothing more than a truncheon quite often.
And if you are sending officers into protect civilians, expecting them to put their lives on the line then you have to offer them protection from frivolous litigation.
When I say arming the general population isn't the answer, it isn't, not in the U.K., unlike here we haven't grown up around firearms, the best outcome in a situation like this weekend would be someone would shoot their own foot, the worst is that a number of people would get shot - the most likely event is that the gun would be thrown at the attacker....not because the desire to defend is missing but the mindset is different.
Guns don't stop home invasions, rape or violent crime here why would you think it would be a miracle cure anywhere else?
I'm not anti gun by a long way but you can't apply US solutions to the U.K.
Politicians have spent so long and so much time accommodating those who seek to destroy the existing way of life that they have forgotten those, who like my Dad, fought for the freedom that other seek to take away.
And finally no I'm not advocating rounding up all Muslims and sticking em in a cage, those who are involved in acts of terror, in any way, those people should be removed from society and dealt with according to the rules of war, because unlike their treatment of prisoners I'd like to think most of us have humanity .
Apologies for the rubbish wording
This assumes that families, friends, and mosques are not supportive of, responsible for, and complicit with the readily visible terrorists.
T
The Green Heron
Guest
Honey. You are wrong. Guns stop a lot of those things here.
And there are many more instances of violent crimes statistically, where people here are forbidden the ability to defend themselves.
Last edited:
T
The Green Heron
Guest
Does it fail? It hasn't been tried as far as I recall. I'm not talking about a few indescriminate killings. I'm talking about dealing with this problem the way we dealt with the Japanese. It seems to have worked quite well in that case. No half measures.
Training: generations of British men, with little or usually no exposure to firearms, have been successfully trained to use guns and be some of the best soldiers in the world.
Mindset: in 20 years of travel to the U.K., I never had a discussion in which a group advocated anything but pacifism and I never had a private discussion -not one- in which the individual did not express a desire to be armed for self defense. The people have the underlying desire if they could suppress the screeching nannies insisting on the politically-correct group-think of non-violence.
Where to begin...
You are right, we come from different cultures...so that aside, lets get down to it.
You assume that people would just shoot themselves in the foot, however you have to remember that while the US has a large population that own firearms, there is also a large population that own firearms and never actually train or practice with them. Owning a weapon makes you as armed as owning a guitar makes me a musician. So don't assume that just because we have the 2nd amendment that everyone here knows how to handle themselves with firearms. That is a falsehood. Spend 5 minutes at any gun range in the US and you will see a swarm of people who barely know which end the bullet comes out of. So using the assertion that quantity = quality is absurd. On top of that, despite this wide ranged lack of concerted training, we still don't have thousands and thousands of lawful gun owners shooting themselves or their neighbors. Remove some of the US cities with the highest crime rates (and more strict gun laws) from the numbers and the rest of the US has some of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is fact based on FBI statistics. Not just an assumption based on feelings.
Also, as a freedom loving people, we appreciate having options. No one is advocating that every man woman and child be issued a side arm. No, we are only saying that people should have the freedom to choose the method they desire to defend themselves. If you want to rely on police response times, hurled guiness bottles, or even just banking on the odds that if you are in a large crowd then your odds of being the one that gets killed is lessened...like a fish in a school being chased by sharks, then so be it. In the US we enjoy the freedom to have another option...we can arm ourselves and be our own first response.
You also have this absolutely false idea that guns do not stop home invasions of crime here in the US...this is an absurdity. We hardly go a day without hearing of a homeowner, or shop owner, who has employed the use of a firearm to defend themselves or their property from invaders. Does it get the same press as a criminal who holds up a gas station unopposed? No. And it certainly doesn't get the press of a whacko who stabs people on a train who manages to kill two unarmed people who only had good intentions and cotton shirts to protect them. I also personally know at least two women who used firearms personally to protect themselves from a robbery/rape. Ask them if they would have rather peed themselves in the hope that their attacker would be disgusted and leave them alone.
Also, no one is arguing that guns are a miracle cure for anything. What guns are, at the core, is a tool that equalizes two people. A simple .22 derringer can put a 100 pound woman on the same ground as a 300 pound linebacker. It can make a lone elderly woman in her home have a chance against 4 armed robbers breaking in during the middle of the night. What they do is give "good" people an actual fighting change to survive in a situation where their survival would otherwise be dictacted by the actions of someone who has already deemed their lives worthless enough to invade them.
We do agree, however, that those who are of a mind to kill will use whateve rmeans as possible to do it. What you also have to remember is that in over 90% of cases these "killers" specifically target places where any form of defense will be none to negligible. Schools, theaters, concerts, dance clubs, and shopping malls where the right of civilians to carry their own protection has been forbidden by the government. Saying "They will do it anyway" does not mean we have to constantly stand on the side of making it easier for them in the future.
But one simple idea that can be done is for Britain to remove the inciters to violence such as the imam of the mosque the killers went to. Other imams say that that is where the message to go out and commit murder came from. take the inciter and banish him to the middle east or somewhere. Maybe a deal can be made with Russia to use some of their old labor camps
OP
Give him a Chilean helicopter ride.
OP
So one of the attackers was on a British tv show called "The Jihadis Next Door"
I agree, but they have to be shown to be closely affiliated with the terrorists, and this has to be shown to the satisfaction of those folks that are possible recruits to terrorism. If these folks are 100% sure that we were justified in say bombing a mosque that was being used to store weapons, then they may not join up to fight us.
At the onset the Japanese were thinking only of what they would win, and they had clear objectives. The objectives of the terrorists are far less clear in part because there are a number of groups, so there is no clear point at which they would say that their cause is lost, they literally can't lose this war because one key goal is to keep fighting; they will settle for no victory and they will accept no defeat. Towards the end the Japanese began to recognize that they had things that they didn't want to lose, that they would rather admit defeat than have more of their population killed and infrastructure destroyed. The terrorists by comparison have nothing to lose. There is nothing that we can destroy or threaten to destroy that would make them decide that enough is enough.
We could destroy much of their capacity to harm us. Limit global travel, enforce a very low standard of living, stop all financial aid, etc. But that'd just make them victims and others would step up to champion their cause.
Better to undermine their society. Introduce drugs and alcohol, gambling. Point out, or fabricate, stories of atrocities done in the name of religion, or corruption. Create new leaders that preach hard while allowing moderation.
drypowder
Les Deplorables
These globalists/marxists are more concerned about keeping Trump out than they are keeping about keeping potential jihadists out.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...slams-london-mayor-risking-diplomatic-scandal
Trump's ongoing attacks at the London mayor drew outrage from UK politicians: Following his comments about the London Bridge attack, Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat party, said Trump's invitation to visit the UK should be withdrawn. As a reminder, Trump is due to make a state visit to London later this year as Britain
tries to persuade him to sign a post-Brexit trade deal.
“Trump is an embarrassment to America,” Farron said in an emailed statement. “Theresa May absolutely must withdraw the state visit. This is a man insulting our national values at a time of introspection and mourning. We need a special relationship, not a supine relationship.”
Along the same lines, last week Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described the prime minister’s position as “subservience” to the president. In a speech on Monday, he asked: “Do we want a country that will say to Donald Trump, ‘You are wrong’?”
Pathetic. The only useful thing about the UK and Europe at this point is they can serve as the canary in the coalmine that hopefully wakes up Americans to the real threat - the marxists/globalists among the citizenry. Deal with that threat, and the jihadist problem can be readily dealt with. Fail to deal with the marxists, and we will be Mexico Norte long before Islamic jihadism gets to be a major problem here. As it is, you are much more likely to be killed, or your wife/daughter raped, by a Mexican than by a Muslim.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...slams-london-mayor-risking-diplomatic-scandal
Trump's ongoing attacks at the London mayor drew outrage from UK politicians: Following his comments about the London Bridge attack, Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat party, said Trump's invitation to visit the UK should be withdrawn. As a reminder, Trump is due to make a state visit to London later this year as Britain
tries to persuade him to sign a post-Brexit trade deal.
“Trump is an embarrassment to America,” Farron said in an emailed statement. “Theresa May absolutely must withdraw the state visit. This is a man insulting our national values at a time of introspection and mourning. We need a special relationship, not a supine relationship.”
Along the same lines, last week Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described the prime minister’s position as “subservience” to the president. In a speech on Monday, he asked: “Do we want a country that will say to Donald Trump, ‘You are wrong’?”
Pathetic. The only useful thing about the UK and Europe at this point is they can serve as the canary in the coalmine that hopefully wakes up Americans to the real threat - the marxists/globalists among the citizenry. Deal with that threat, and the jihadist problem can be readily dealt with. Fail to deal with the marxists, and we will be Mexico Norte long before Islamic jihadism gets to be a major problem here. As it is, you are much more likely to be killed, or your wife/daughter raped, by a Mexican than by a Muslim.
Last edited:
I think you underestimate the level of violence I am suggesting. I'm not even saying it is legal without some form of a declaration of war. And in most people's opinions it might not be moral. Think The Hills Have Eyes level of depravity. And mass deportations. And lots of raw pork involved with their dead bodies. That religion and culture needs to be beaten down until it decides to have its own reformation.
Does anyone else read her posts in an English accent, or it just me?
Carry on Chikinchick, glad to see you posting.
Last edited:
Ahh, bring terror to the terrorist. Still won't work. Hitler killed half the Jews in the world and terrorized damn near all the rest, and yet they soldier on perhaps more successfully than they would have been without his persecution. Putting numbers to it, half the Muslims would be 800,000,000 (population of the US is only 325,000,000) and as Hitler proved, you'd need to surpass that to be effective. It really isn't a workable solution even if you toss all laws and morality.
drypowder
Les Deplorables
As an aside, this kind of mass culling can accelerate evolution. If, on average, the Jews with better foresight and/or wealth got out of Germany, Poland, and much of the rest of Eastern Europe, ahead of the pogroms and roundups, you can have a dramatic shift in the gene pool, since intelligence is partially genetic. When you consider that 1930s Germany wasn't the first time/place that decided that Jews had overstayed their welcome, it's possible multiple such rounds of purges may have accelerated the evolution of Jews. Unintentional eugenics.
On the flipside, we have America, where the productive are heavily taxed and thus have fewer progeny, while the least productive are paid to breed; and in the next generation, the voting is stacked even more against the productive. This is even before throwing the borders open to third world immigration with no intelligence testing of who gets in, and even offering handouts, ensuring that lots of unproductive immigrants arrive. Intentional (by Marxists) dysgenics.
Last edited:
It could work well enough that it wouldn't be a problem for a couple of generations. Without Medina or Mecca, any mosque anywhere in the world, and guaranteed death by and with bacon for all combatants, they would at least lay low for quite a while just as they have in the past, _when forced to_.
There is no nice answer that has ever worked with this particular cult, so other than violence, what do you propose?
We are not the equivalent of Hitler and Muslim's are surely not Jews. We're likely to get to the point of atrocities one way or another. I'd rather we were on the giving side for a change. Actually, they are already throwing people off buildings, blowing people up, crucifying people and raping and murdering all over the world. I'll take my chances with a more aggressive approach than what we have tried in the last few hundred years. They should either behave as humans or die. At the least they should all be shipped back to their country of origin as a start. That would at lewst reduce the numbers. Then we can deal with our own homegrown problems. This really is not complicated. We don't have to kill all 800M. Just enough to change convince the rest to set a new course. My guess is there is a point where some enlightened Imans could be convinced to create a new, updated version of the Koran.
Last edited:
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I hope you see the irony in what you are saying.
And no, I don't think that would work. You won't get them all only the ones you see. It vidicates their beliefs would make believers double down. It may also turn those that have been peaceful to violence or thoughts of retribution. They are in it for the long game. They will go underground and subvert the system, just as they are doing now.
Yes, I believe there should be strong decisive action to control the jihadist, but the kind of genocide you are talking about is, well, wrong. It makes you like them.
They are a cancer. You can't kill the host to eradicate them and claim a victory.
Last edited:
Maybe. But you do know the definition of insanity right? Cause that's what we're doing now. Oh, and we're actually importing more violent welfare recipients that want to kill us. I'd prefer we have fewer muderous, child abusing degenerates in our midst. I am actually a little surprised the goat humpers have so much support here. Guess they are winning.
Last edited:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/06/05/cut-the-crap-islam-must-be-exterminated-heres-how/
This is a theory with some promise. And more importantly it says that Islam is a political theory, not a religion. I'd agree, but at worst it is both. If you are born here and your Muslim brother commits one of these heinous acts then we're going to sell all your property and pay for your forced location to the goat humper land of your choice. Have a nice trip. Enjoy all the goats you own.
This is a theory with some promise. And more importantly it says that Islam is a political theory, not a religion. I'd agree, but at worst it is both. If you are born here and your Muslim brother commits one of these heinous acts then we're going to sell all your property and pay for your forced location to the goat humper land of your choice. Have a nice trip. Enjoy all the goats you own.
I have nothing specific, just a long term erosion of the underlying tenants of their religion/culture combined with doing everything possible to regain the moral high ground in the eyes of the average Muslim.
In the short term I would stop/slow immigration and refugee relocation and figure out how to pressure the Saudi royal family to resolve this problem for us, we need to be out of it.
Sorry if I've given you this impression, it isn't that I'm supportive of them, it's that I'm opposed to so-called solutions that we redefine American values and are unlikely to be successful.
What do you think would be successful? I am all ears.
Ok, the ending immigation/refugees is all good. But if you think the Saudi's will help I have a bridge in Apex, NC to sell . Plus the Saudi's o ly solves half of the Sunni/Shia issue. I could foresee a policy of limiting their geography as opposed to all out war, but their creed demands world domination or submission. So do we kill them or submit?
Last edited:
IF YOU WANT TO WIN, YOU NEED TO GO ALL SHERMAN AND SHERIDAN, WITH PERHAPS A SOUPCON OF LEMAY: Counter-terror Lessons from America’s Civil War. “The way to win the war is to frighten the larger community of Muslims who passively support terror by action or inaction–frighten them so badly that they will inform on family members. Frightening the larger Muslim population in the West does not require a great deal of effort: a few thousand deportations would do.”
Posted at 6:40 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Posted at 6:40 pm by Glenn Reynolds
The same House of Saud that's directly responsible for the rise and spread of Wahhabism?
They're not the solution to ANYTHING.
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
^This^
Shoot down the aggressors. Force should be met with force. But, there are many muslims that truly believe they are a religion of peace. I believe they don't really understand their own religion. Their peace comes when there is only one religion. But, what of these misguided people? Are they destroyed along with the others?
Given time, terrorism will redefine the values of Americans and other non-Muslims and will make things that are unthinkable today perfectly acceptable.