Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
OA260 wrote:N14AZ wrote:OA260 wrote:We are going to have to get used to these kind of attacks
??? Well, we all have our own opinions. We just had one major attack in Germany. I will definitely not get used to these kind of attacks. Something has to be done...
So what would you suggest be done? .
OA260 wrote:The nature of the attacks has changed too.
Dano1977 wrote:I do wonder when does the kettle reach boiling point.....
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet but in the UK terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks. The U.K. is used to it from the IRA etc. So maybe we're a bit more resilient
But, the Manchester attack was targeted at kids. And the feeling I got from that was not the "oh well, it happens, business as usual", but an underlying anger. The faces on TV at the Manchester memorial event were not the usual grief crying wailing, but instead deep frowned and jaw set.
The sad thing now, as per Standard Operating procedures, the armed police who shot the attackers, have probably been removed from duty pending an investigation into the shootings.
DIRECTFLT wrote:BCal Dc10 wrote:I get texts from my American friends asking (very kindly) if I'm ok. I'm in England right now, on vacation, and was in central London last night, in Piccadilly at 6pm last night and it was heaving.
Like Aesma, I thought about terrorism a bit, like - wow if a crazy truck driver drove here now, he would take out many people, but we should not change our behaviour in case of what might happen. We must keep going to Deep Purple concerts, or dinner in a pub in London, or see Ariana in Manchester.
Don't give up people. Don't be afraid.
Here in Texas, we won't be giving up or changing our behavior. Conceal carry will go on. And brave citizens will step in when when terrorists try to run wild with knifes in the streets.
aviationaware wrote:
Nothing more to say.
N14AZ wrote:I think we should learn from Israel. They demolished the houses of the suicide attackers's families the next day. No discussion, they simply did it.
I would also close all mosques in Europe for let's say three weeks. The "normal " Muslim must realise that we cannot accept this any longer. We already accepted it for too long...
JJJ wrote:DIRECTFLT wrote:BCal Dc10 wrote:I get texts from my American friends asking (very kindly) if I'm ok. I'm in England right now, on vacation, and was in central London last night, in Piccadilly at 6pm last night and it was heaving.
Like Aesma, I thought about terrorism a bit, like - wow if a crazy truck driver drove here now, he would take out many people, but we should not change our behaviour in case of what might happen. We must keep going to Deep Purple concerts, or dinner in a pub in London, or see Ariana in Manchester.
Don't give up people. Don't be afraid.
Here in Texas, we won't be giving up or changing our behavior. Conceal carry will go on. And brave citizens will step in when when terrorists try to run wild with knifes in the streets.
Except if such a thing ever happens in Texas they won't just have knives.
GDB wrote:
I should not be surprised but I sense almost glee from some of a certain outlook on here to last night's events, well wait for the next mass shooting in the US, it won't be long in coming whatever the cause, won't be a proud patriot who stops it 'freedom style' with his precious gun (if anything when the cops do arrive, if there is a person like that they'd shoot him too, called out to a shooting, here's a man with a gun).
Olddog wrote:Glad the attack stopped so fast but I was a little worried listening Cressida Dick bragging about that. The fact that it was stopped fast is mainly because the attackers accidentally crashed their van and had no explosive or gun. If they were armed the result could have been way worse.
GDB wrote:LOT767301ER wrote:No, you dont go on like normal. You start supporting and voting in people who will implement deportations for foreign nationals, lock the borders down and implement maximum security penalties for any citizen that even smells of sympathizing with this behavior.
This is going to continue regardless what the 6 or 7 usual apologists on here say unless you do what needs to be done. Period.
Been there, done that.
In 1971, with the violence in Northern Ireland escalating, the UK government took the advice of the N.I. administration and set up interment camps.
What a mistake, it did nothing to stem the violence, in fact it made it worse, the intel (from the N.I. government and years out of date) was so poor it pulled in senior citizens, at least one blind man, even worse being detained with trial, or having it happen to relatives, radicalised many others.
You probably know about the events of 30 Jan 1972, or 'Bloody Sunday', that march which turned violent then even worse, was in protest against internment. So not only was internment itself a disaster, it led to other disasters and a boost to the IRA.
Who not only carried on but escalated, in 1974 they started blowing up pubs in places like Birmingham where 22 people died.
(In 1972 the UK government did what they should have done sooner perhaps, direct rule from London, internment and it's effects showed the N.I. admin were in over their heads and way too partisan - Loyalist terrorists were active before internment yet none, nor their supporters, were detained).
Aesma wrote:N14AZ wrote:I think we should learn from Israel. They demolished the houses of the suicide attackers's families the next day. No discussion, they simply did it.
I would also close all mosques in Europe for let's say three weeks. The "normal " Muslim must realise that we cannot accept this any longer. We already accepted it for too long...
If we look at Israel, people there really live in fear, with bunkers in their homes, and attacks happen on a weekly basis regardless. If anything is to be learned it's that we should do the opposite of what they're doing.
bgm wrote:
Way to go labelling 3 billion people in the world as terrorists. Stop showing off that lovely education you have.
Should we label all Catholics terrorists because of the IRA? See where I'm going with this?
All Muslims are not out to kill you. That's what your paranoid friends/right-wing media are telling you. You're much more likely to be gunned down by a white male Christian than you are by an Islamic terrorist.
Also, how does the closing the borders help if these terrorists are born and bred in the country they attacked?
The funny thing is that you are playing right into the terrorist's hands. The bigotry and ignorance you display is exactly what they want you to do. Their goal is to make the West hate ordinary Muslims. And by your post it seems you're falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
Bravo *slow clap*
Kiwirob wrote:But his parents aren't so you revoke there citizenship and deport them back home, you've got to start getting tough, deporting entire families is a start, also don't allow anymore muslims in, no more family renunifications, no more husbands and brides from back home, otherwise you end up with there future children turning terrorist.
MrHMSH wrote:Being a Catholic wasn't a requirement of getting into the IRA, and the IRA had a clearly defined aim: a United Ireland, which isn't an unreasonable, they were just wrong to go about it with bombing. But the IRA could be brought to the debating table. Good luck getting ISIS to sign an equivalent of the Good Friday agreement. .
pvjin wrote:Aesma wrote:N14AZ wrote:I think we should learn from Israel. They demolished the houses of the suicide attackers's families the next day. No discussion, they simply did it.
I would also close all mosques in Europe for let's say three weeks. The "normal " Muslim must realise that we cannot accept this any longer. We already accepted it for too long...
If we look at Israel, people there really live in fear, with bunkers in their homes, and attacks happen on a weekly basis regardless. If anything is to be learned it's that we should do the opposite of what they're doing.
So what is the opposite of what they are doing? Does that mean we should accept attacks as a daily reality of life and do nothing? Should we perhaps negotiate with terrorists and impose Sharia law to make them happy?
Aesma wrote:There is nothing to negotiate with nuts. We need to lower the number of people who go nuts. Alienating entire populations like Trump is proposing will do the opposite of that.
TheF15Ace wrote:OA260 wrote:Glad they shot dead the 3 attackers unless the authorities need to keep them alive for intelligence reasons then the policy should be shoot to kill.
Yep.
The call that woke me up today somewhere around 2.30 in the morning was from my girlfriend who was in London saying there was some kind of attack but she was ok and spending the night at a friend's house. Not sure I'll ever forget that one.
As someone above said, radical clerics should be dealt with either with deportation or arrest depending on their level of involvement. Still it'll be useless if nothing is done about who is actually bankrolling these scum. I don't expect any action to be taken on that front until our governments (both American and European) stop kissing Saudi ass to secure billion dollar arms sales.
FCAFLYBOY wrote:Slight correction to the above without wanting to be pedantic - Barking is in east London, not to the east of London. It's the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.
Bizarrely, I lived in Harts Lane which is mere seconds walk from where these arrests took place today until last September, for the last 7 years. That Barking is in some way involved doesn't surprise me in the least. It's a very problematic area known to harbour many radical Islamists, same with much of east London sadly. Glad to be out of there.
Aesma wrote:If anything is to be learned it's that we should do the opposite of what they're doing.
andz wrote:I can't believe that they are contemplating an investigation into why 8 officers fired "an unprecedented" 50 rounds.
They were wearing "suicide vests" and had already killed and injured who knew how many, neutralise the assholes then count the number saved, not cartridge cases.
Political correctness gone mad. Did they have an EHS review before the response?
GlenP wrote:andz wrote:I can't believe that they are contemplating an investigation into why 8 officers fired "an unprecedented" 50 rounds.
They were wearing "suicide vests" and had already killed and injured who knew how many, neutralise the assholes then count the number saved, not cartridge cases.
Political correctness gone mad. Did they have an EHS review before the response?
It is standard practice that an enquiry is held even if armed police simply draw their weapons and do not fire them, in the UK. Remember that, unlike some parts of the world, the use of firearms is not standard practice.
In a similar vein, despite being issued with terms of engagement and, even if they strictly adhered to them, if squaddies had actually fired their weapons, when patrolling NI, during "The Troubles", they would still have been subject to an enquiry and possibly have ended up in a civilian court; despite the fact that there were engaged in counter insurgency operations at the time.
PlanesNTrains wrote:RE: Trump, Obama, Merkel, et al. Has it really made a difference who is in office, what they do, who they reach out to, or anything else? IMHO, no.
pvjin wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:RE: Trump, Obama, Merkel, et al. Has it really made a difference who is in office, what they do, who they reach out to, or anything else? IMHO, no.
Not really, because none of them are willing to do what it would really take to get rid of terrorism, as massive deportations based on religion would break a lot human rights treaties.
andz wrote:I can't believe that they are contemplating an investigation into why 8 officers fired "an unprecedented" 50 rounds.
They were wearing "suicide vests" and had already killed and injured who knew how many, neutralise the assholes then count the number saved, not cartridge cases.
Political correctness gone mad. Did they have an EHS review before the response?
PlanesNTrains wrote:pvjin wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:RE: Trump, Obama, Merkel, et al. Has it really made a difference who is in office, what they do, who they reach out to, or anything else? IMHO, no.
Not really, because none of them are willing to do what it would really take to get rid of terrorism, as massive deportations based on religion would break a lot human rights treaties.
Deporting based on religion is a non-starter from every aspect, not just human rights treaties. I don't think the vast majority of the population would want to pack every Muslim up and deport them, even if there were a way to do that. Other than the fringe left and right, imho, most people are reasonable and, if it weren't for the internet and social media, we would probably be a lot happier. When I interact with people face to face there is never an issue and we all get along. It's when you get on the internet and start allowing yourself to fall into the back-and-forth clap-trap that we lose perspective and things take on a life of their own. IMHO.
pvjin wrote:Yep of course deportations of that scale aren't likely to ever happen. I guess that means countries with growing Muslim minorities are doomed to face more and more terrorism each passing decade, while those with few Muslims will remain safe. Most people are reasonable, including Muslims, but some world views and cultures just don't mix well with each other, and that's why the European multiculturalist project is failing.
AirplaneWizard wrote:There's always a solution and the right way to do things. Hint: Take a look at Hungary and Poland for example in Europe and see why they are still doing well. You will find that they didn't allow tremendous number of people of one particular religion/ethnicity to migrate to their countries.
GDB wrote:AirplaneWizard wrote:There's always a solution and the right way to do things. Hint: Take a look at Hungary and Poland for example in Europe and see why they are still doing well. You will find that they didn't allow tremendous number of people of one particular religion/ethnicity to migrate to their countries.
And are currently run by governments who attack free speech, try to intimidate any opposition, one of the parties has dubious links to far right groups, the other by a bunch of conspiracy nuts (especially in regard to an air crash in 2010).
DDR wrote:You don't need to deport all Muslims, that amounts to ethnic cleansing. Just deport the ones who are spewing hate. The governments know who these individuals are. Why don't they bounce them before they can radicalize others?
DDR wrote:If they are citizens, you remove them from the public and society.
AirplaneWizard wrote:DDR wrote:If they are citizens, you remove them from the public and society.
If they are proven to be a threat and everything, you can ship them off to places such as Gauntanano Bay, or isolate them in a maximum high security prison, where they are kept away from other prisoners. They need to be kept away from local prisons because there's a chance they could radicalize simple criminals into believing their bullsh*t.
N14AZ wrote:
I think we should learn from Israel. They demolished the houses of the suicide attackers's families the next day. No discussion, they simply did it.
DDR wrote:You don't need to deport all Muslims, that amounts to ethnic cleansing.
DocLightning wrote:N14AZ wrote:
I think we should learn from Israel. They demolished the houses of the suicide attackers's families the next day. No discussion, they simply did it.
Which worked well because now Israel has no terrorist attacks because the terrorists are too afraid to attack Israel.DDR wrote:You don't need to deport all Muslims, that amounts to ethnic cleansing.
That's literally what people are advocating now. Because we know how well *that* has historically worked.
The big problem is that we're in a situation that mankind has literally never faced before. We're in a modern, industrialized era in which there are two cultures that are intermixing poorly. One of those cultures is modern, industrialized, and secular. One is backwards, imports what little industrialization it has, and oppressively religious. There's no historical precedent for relieving that kind of situation, is there?
Pyrex wrote:Germany bans political opinions (being a Nazi is illegal there), so not sure why a European country would not be able to ban someone based on a religious opinion.
AirplaneWizard wrote:DDR wrote:If they are citizens, you remove them from the public and society.
If they are proven to be a threat and everything, you can ship them off to places such as Gauntanano Bay, or isolate them in a maximum high security prison, where they are kept away from other prisoners. They need to be kept away from local prisons because there's a chance they could radicalize simple criminals into believing their bullsh*t.
AirplaneWizard wrote:GDB wrote:AirplaneWizard wrote:There's always a solution and the right way to do things. Hint: Take a look at Hungary and Poland for example in Europe and see why they are still doing well. You will find that they didn't allow tremendous number of people of one particular religion/ethnicity to migrate to their countries.
And are currently run by governments who attack free speech, try to intimidate any opposition, one of the parties has dubious links to far right groups, the other by a bunch of conspiracy nuts (especially in regard to an air crash in 2010).
Then you my friend are enrolled in a catch 22 situation. However I would rather have one party that may have links with the far right, a couple of conspiracy nuts, than what's happening all over Western Europe. If these particular group of people that commit such acts come to power, you can say goodbye to your country, free speech and everything else. You would just become another infidel for them....
There's also the Austrian and Swiss approach to things. I don't believe they give out citizenships unless you have lived there for 15-30 consecutive years and have completely proved that you have integrated completely.
LittleFokker wrote:Pyrex wrote:Germany bans political opinions (being a Nazi is illegal there), so not sure why a European country would not be able to ban someone based on a religious opinion.
How do you know? Were you kicked out there you ignorant, hateful nazi?AirplaneWizard wrote:DDR wrote:If they are citizens, you remove them from the public and society.
If they are proven to be a threat and everything, you can ship them off to places such as Gauntanano Bay, or isolate them in a maximum high security prison, where they are kept away from other prisoners. They need to be kept away from local prisons because there's a chance they could radicalize simple criminals into believing their bullsh*t.
Wow, you racists have no boundaries anymore....even citizens are no longer protected by the 8th Amendment!
DocLightning wrote:That's literally what people are advocating now. Because we know how well *that* has historically worked.
The big problem is that we're in a situation that mankind has literally never faced before. We're in a modern, industrialized era in which there are two cultures that are intermixing poorly. One of those cultures is modern, industrialized, and secular. One is backwards, imports what little industrialization it has, and oppressively religious. There's no historical precedent for relieving that kind of situation, is there?
Airstud wrote:Kiwirob wrote:BCal Dc10 wrote:
how do you think this approach will work out? A lot of these terrorists, like the Manchester concert bomber are home grown. The guy who blew himself up at the NYNEX was born in Manchester. He wasn't a foreigner. He was British.
Come back with a more credible argument about this, when you get the facts right in your head.
But his parents aren't so you revoke there citizenship and deport them back home, you've got to start getting tough, deporting entire families is a start, also don't allow anymore muslims in, no more family renunifications, no more husbands and brides from back home, otherwise you end up with there future children turning terrorist.
This is where I think a Brit would say, "Are you winding me up?" Revoke the attacker's PARENTS citizenship? What does that even fix? Should we have sent Tim McVeigh's parents (McVeigh blew up the government building in Oklahoma City in '95) to federal prison?