General / Off-Topic Incident At Westminster

[space pilot]

Violence begets more violence. Dealing with them 'as nature intended' simply creates a cycle of hatred and retribution.

Sadly I think there is no way to possibly prevent things like this from happening in a free and open society.

The complete destruction of one side has been the historical solution. That's how nature "intended" conflicts to end; otherwise they're perpetual.

This is a factual as opposed to a moral argument. It's not to say that any side in any conflict deserves to be destroyed. Just that as long as there are sides, there is always conflict.

 

[Boomer Kay]

The complete destruction of one side has been the historical solution. That's how nature "intended" conflicts to end; otherwise they're perpetual.

This is a factual as opposed to a moral argument. It's not to say that any side in any conflict deserves to be destroyed. Just that as long as there are sides, there is always conflict.

Factual?
What was the opposing side of dinosaurs?

 

[space pilot]

Factual?
What was the opposing side of dinosaurs?

None politically. It was a comet or some such.

 

[Lianachan]

The complete destruction of one side has been the historical solution.

What examples of that can you provide?

 

[Siobhan]

None politically. It was a comet or some such.

Bloody immigrant comets, coming over 'ere and killin' our dinosaurs!

 

[Boomer Kay]

None politically. It was a comet or some such.

So natural extinction is neither linked to sides nor rhyme nor reason. (hint: Global Warming?)
And there's a multitude of examples where destruction of one political side was ever a final solution? Ever? China? Russia? The Republik?

 

[space pilot]

So natural extinction is neither linked to sides nor rhyme nor reason.

There's reason, as whatever side is more effective at removing the other will win.

(hint: Global Warming?)

Martian temperatures parallel Earth temperatures, and everything is going to be just fine in that arena for millenia. I do worry about asteroids and ice ages.

And there's a multitude of examples where destruction of one political side was ever a final solution? Ever? China? Russia? The Republik?

The Soviet Union was destroyed, and the cold war ended.

 

[Lianachan]

The Soviet Union was destroyed, and the cold war ended.

Err, the Soviet Union wasn't destroyed - it was dissolved. The Cold War is alive and well, too.

I'm struggling to think of any historical examples where the complete destruction of one side was achieved.

 

[Zieman]

During the Second World War, the General De Gaulle, in England called the French to resist to the germans (appeal of 18 June 1940 on the BBC). And yes, many French people (amateurs and professionals) have heard the call of the General ...

Many French seem to heed that call even today. Shouldn't they have stopped resisting Germans 70 years ago, as the war ended and you're allies with them now (NATO, EU)?

 

[Sunleader]

You confuse "to Do" and "to Stop"

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong, the profiles of the terrorists are linked to the philosophy and the appeals of isis

Good.
So if I today call on all People of France to raise up to their Frankish Ancestors and Revolt against the Oppression of France to overthrow the Government and Rejoin Germany as the Successors of the Frankish Empire.
And I tell all of you in France that you should Kill and Attack Government Officials and Civillians and People who deny Frankish Ancestry wherever you can and Murder them in Freedom Attacks.

After that.
I will then start to claim Responsibility for each and every Murder happening in France claiming it to be my Holy Soldiers Fighting for the Freedom of the Frankish Empire.

Of course to make sure that the thing is taken serious I will send a Handful of Terrorists as well to France to make some Terror Attacks which are actually Ordered by me.
So people dont think I am just the crazy Lunatic I actually am


Would you then consider the Population of France a Threat and Responsible for Terror Attacks ?


Muslime are not ISIS Soldiers.
ISIS claiming Responsibility for each and every Frustrated Idiot who decides that the World is Unfair and thus decides to go against by killing People. Does not make Muslim People into ISIS Soldiers.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Err, the Soviet Union wasn't destroyed - it was dissolved.

If you go by the course of events, it's clear that "radical islamic terror" is dissolving fast. I guess the prospect of 77 to 99 virgins in heaven is not as appealing as it used to be 500 years ago, when you could look up and not know what's behind the ozone layer. ISS > ISIS

The 9/11 attacks were devastating, powerfull shock and awe (and provoked a complete and counterproductive response, most likely leading to a decade of terror recruiters bonanza)
Paris attacks were wicked, still powerfull, with assault weapons and trained fighters supported by a network.
Brussels Bombings, too.
Berlin was already a clear step down. The best they could send from a "talent pool" of a billion was one lone wolf with a gun and a truck? The best he could achieve is getting germany closer together?
The two attempted attacks in Paris were nothing. Lunatics attacking heaviely armed police/military?
London was in that realm, but unfortunately still too lethal.

Either islamic terror is running out of recruits pretty hard, because that medival ideology holds not much sway in a modern society or police/intelligence has done a much better job at containing it and destroying it's once certainly powerfull networks than we give them credit for.
Or both.

After the Paris attacks, I think many were scared of a constant stream of heaviely armed assailants. That proved to be wrong.
Calm down, stay alert, don't forget to actually still live your life. You'll die one day, irreregardless of circumstances.

 

[space pilot]

Err, the Soviet Union wasn't destroyed - it was dissolved.

If I drop a sugar cube into a glass of water, will it be destroyed, dissolved, or perhaps both? The USSR wasn't directly, physically destroyed by an external force, I'll give you that, but the threat that it would be was instrumental in causing it to cease to exist. American defense spending, and fake spending like on the Strategic Defense Initiative, did a number on the economy, which did a number on the morale of the people, which did in the Communist Party there.

The Cold War is alive and well, too.

That's so wrong I don't know what angle to take with it. The global struggle between capitalism and communism fought between two superpowers, in proxy wars, without (much) direct force only because of the threat of mutually assured destruction by way of nuclear holocaust, occasionally pressing against the breaking point like in the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's alive and well, is it.

I'm struggling to think of any historical examples where the complete destruction of one side was achieved.

Wait until the end of this argument.

 

[Boomer Kay]

If I drop a sugar cube into a glass of water, will it be destroyed, dissolved, or perhaps both?

You're mixing two things up. Sugar and Cube.
They're both independent characteristics.

The promise of an elysian afterlife was never destroyed. It just dissolves more and more the further science progresses.

The USSR wasn't directly, physically destroyed by an external force, I'll give you that, but the threat that it would be was instrumental in causing it to cease to exist

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was fist and foremost not a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

[space pilot]

You're mixing two things up. Sugar and Cube.
They're both independent characteristics.

The promise of an elysian afterlife was never destroyed. It just dissolves more and more the further science progresses.

I suspect you're attempting to distract me with red herrings. (But you could be utterly insane.)

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was fist and foremost not a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I don't...

 

[amigacooke]

And the hijack of the thread is complete. No longer worth reading.

 

[Lianachan]

If I drop a sugar cube into a glass of water, will it be destroyed, dissolved, or perhaps both? The USSR wasn't directly, physically destroyed by an external force, I'll give you that, but the threat that it would be was instrumental in causing it to cease to exist. American defense spending, and fake spending like on the Strategic Defense Initiative, did a number on the economy, which did a number on the morale of the people, which did in the Communist Party there.

That's so wrong I don't know what angle to take with it. The global struggle between capitalism and communism fought between two superpowers, in proxy wars, without (much) direct force only because of the threat of mutually assured destruction by way of nuclear holocaust, occasionally pressing against the breaking point like in the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's alive and well, is it.


Wait until the end of this argument.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp of either history or politics! I can't wait to see the end of this argument, it ought to be good.

 

[space pilot]

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp of either history or politics! I can't wait to see the end of this argument, it ought to be good.

If you don't say why, it's just "I don't like you!". Well, I don't like you either! /Mos Eisley Guy

 

[Lianachan]

And the hijack of the thread is complete. No longer worth reading.

Indeed, this is not the thread for ignorant squabbles.

 

[Javert]

For whoever it was the other day who was claiming that Muslims never stand up and protest against ISIS, here's just one example from the UK:

https://www.facebook.com/MicMedia/videos/1440038886018897/

This is just one example and you can find many others. When it's thrown out that most Muslims agree with ISIS because they never protest against it, this is absolute nonsense (encouraged by the media to their shame).

I also have to agree with Boomer that, shocking though these events are, the pattern we are seeing now is that over the last 15 years the terrorist attacks in EU and US have become less and less effective. This is probably partly due to lack of people prepared to die, and partly due to security forces having much better intelligence which makes it extremely risky for terrorist groups to operate in a coordinated fashion.

This so called dangerous terrorist couldn't even get hold of a gun or any explosives, or even a van or truck, and failed to coordinate any series of other attacks at the same time - seems to indicate he was acting alone.

Any one of us posting on this thread could have carried out that attack with pretty much zero preparation. This sounds alarming, but since it's not happening every day, this appears to suggest that there are very few people willing and intending to make such attacks.

The chances of being killed by this type of terrorist attack are extremely slim, and much less than your chance of being murdered in a mugging or killed in a car crash.

This is why some of us are pointing out that the media reaction to this is completely out of proportion to the incident and the nature of the threat, when compared to other risks in everyday life and other violent crime threats which exist every day in our societies.

 

[beelbeebub]

I know the police are investigating this as a terrorist act, which seems sensible.

Does anyone have any links to the evidence that this was a terrorist act.?

Let's discount ISIS claims, as has been pointed out they lay claim to anything.

A man name Adrian Ellis, born in Kent, with a history of violent offences going back to the 80's drives on the pavement in London, killing 5 or so people and injuring dozens more, gets out and stand a policeman before being shot dead.

Is there anything in that narrative that screams terrorism over, say a breakdown?

The only things we have that point to Islam inspired terrorism are his skin colour, his name change, presumably his religion and the fact he was on the periphery of a terrorism investigation some years ago.

We need to be careful we don't fall into the trap of labeling every violent public act committed by a Muslim (or just a non white person) as terrorism when the dame act committed by a white person is just criminal.

The IRA killed an.average of 50 civilians a year from 1969 to 2001, around 1500 in total. So far, since 2000 Islam inspired terrorists have killed (and I may have missed a few) around 65, most in the tube bombings.

We must keep perspective (and to be fair, most seem to be only the usual suspects are making a thing of this).