[Archived] Manchester Bombing

[K-Hod]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Well then lets do nothing then and keep letting these bombings happening. 

Do you have a way to stop them or just against every idea thats might stop these bombings? 

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

My point is, it's very difficult to completely ban things from the internet, but better/more monitoring might be a start!

[broadsword]

I'm in favour of doing something useful. Rather than soundbites. 

Instead of weakening the army and police to enrichen the top 1% in the name of austerity, and letting jihadis roam freely and selling arms to saudi, let's put the safety of our country first. 

More police, more army, stop interfering in the middle east, deport the jihadis . 

Yes, that will cost money, but lets face it, at the moment that money is going into the pockets of the rich. Let's do something useful with it instead

[broadsword]

Just now, K-Hod said:

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

My point is, it's very difficult to ban stuff from the internet, but better/more monitoring might be a start!

Classic straw man

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, K-Hod said:

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

My point is, it's very difficult to completely ban things from the internet, but better/more monitoring might be a start!

Well you didnt say that tho did you?

But lets start tighting internet security, getting internet companies to start banning extremist/terrorist videos/chats, keep increasing the counter terrorism budget and deporting any extremist/terrorist like Germany have. 

[K-Hod]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Well you didnt say that tho did you?

But lets start tighting internet security, getting internet companies to start banning extremist/terrorist videos/chats, keep increasing the counter terrorism budget and deporting any extremist/terrorist like Germany have. 

No, I said that they would end up on the dark web, I made no suggestion or analysis in that original post....

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well then lets do nothing then and keep letting these bombings happening. 

Do you have a way to stop them or just against every idea thats might stop these bombings? 

The first part is scummy, come on Chris you're better than that, nobody here is against stopping the deaths of innocents. As for Khod's point, whilst taking YouTube videos off is obvious and easy - if you think the group chats, the telegrams, the other social media stuff is called "ISIS recruitment", then you are naive in the ultimate extreme. How do you ban videos/groups that are named something random and private? Thus only invited can see or comment in?

Have you seen four lions? It has a scene where two bombers communicate..... over a children's chatroom/game called "puffinbirds" or something. That's the point, the actual job of stopping these communications is an extremely complicated one. 

We need a more long term, all consuming and unifying strategy that doesn't just assume it can be fixed by one or two quarter-baked suggestions.

 

[Steve Moss]

8 hours ago, broadsword said:

Why stop at guns? Guns are for soft lads.

Lets arm our citizens with maces, halberds, lochaber axes, spears, nunchuks, garottes, pirate swords, throwing stars, crossbows, AK-47's, claymore mines, war hammers, pick axe handles, artificial limbs, bolas and itching powder.

I'd sure feel safe at night walking down the street seeing everyone with some sort of weapon in their hand.

"There is no throwing of ninja stars in the green zone. Please hand your ninja stars in at the nearest saloon bar. In case of terrorist attack, please use pirate weapons only. Thank you, and have a nice day."

Sure.  Why not?

You either trust your citizenry or you do not.  You are in the not category.  Fine.  The fact that the Brits don't trust themselves or their neighbors or even most of their law enforcement with an inanimate object says a lot about Britain.

[Baz]

19 minutes ago, Biz said:

The first part is scummy, come on Chris you're better than that, nobody here is against stopping the deaths of innocents. As for Khod's point, whilst taking YouTube videos off is obvious and easy - if you think the group chats, the telegrams, the other social media stuff is called "ISIS recruitment", then you are naive in the ultimate extreme. How do you ban videos/groups that are named something random and private? Thus only invited can see or comment in?

Have you seen four lions? It has a scene where two bombers communicate..... over a children's chatroom/game called "puffinbirds" or something. That's the point, the actual job of stopping these communications is an extremely complicated one. 

We need a more long term, all consuming and unifying strategy that doesn't just assume it can be fixed by one or two quarter-baked suggestions.

 

You need people working the streets, getting feedback, knowing their area, building relationships, you need better prospects for young people, so they don't feel like they aren't wanted, you actually up the mental health care budget (instead of every 18 months re-announcing the same funds). It's not easy, you still need your intelligence professionals, and armed response units.

The trouble is, (as people are beginning to see) - if all you do is cut - you end up with reduction in quality, and eventually you end up with nothing. 

[Baz]

Just now, Steve Moss said:

Sure.  Why not?

You either trust your citizenry or you do not.  You are in the not category.  Fine.  The fact that the Brits don't trust themselves or their neighbors with an inanimate object says a lot about Britain.

It's that we trust each other more than needing to carry a gun to feel safe.

It says a lot about the US that you need to carry a weapon capable of killing people at will, than trust your fellow countrymen.

[broadsword]

An inanimate object, let's be a bit more specific here, a lethal weapon.

Just to put things into context, I've never been in a position where lives would've been saved if only I'd had a gun. I'd suspect the majority of people in this country would say the same thing.

Not so much a case of trusting the citizenry, as the cost far outweighing the benefit.

[JBiz]

Just now, Steve Moss said:

Sure.  Why not?

You either trust your citizenry or you do not.  You are in the not category.  Fine.  The fact that the Brits don't trust themselves or their neighbors or even most of their law enforcement with an inanimate object says a lot about Britain.

The problem is not the inanimate object, it's the people who pull the trigger. 

[Baz]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well you didnt say that tho did you?

But lets start tighting internet security, getting internet companies to start banning extremist/terrorist videos/chats, keep increasing the counter terrorism budget and deporting any extremist/terrorist like Germany have. 

Of the 127 recommendations identified in the report to Sadiq Khan, how many have the government given him the funding For? 

Of the press release saying that the Government was putting the capital at risk with its continuing policing cuts, what was the government's response? Did they have public safety in mind, and back him, or did they ignore him and continue?

 

[Steve Moss]

Just now, Baz said:

It's that we trust each other more than needing to carry a gun to feel safe.

It says a lot about the US that you need to carry a weapon capable of killing people at will, than trust your fellow countrymen.

That's some logic.  "We trust each other so much we took everyone's weapons away."

In addition to being logically flawed, it's historically inaccurate.  Your elected leaders first imposed strict gun control after WWI because it feared it's returning soldiers and the burgeoning socialist movement.  England's crime and murder rate, despite a citizen being able to carry a pistol, was incredibly low.  It had nothing to do with crime.  

[Baz]

Just now, Steve Moss said:

That's some logic.  "We trust each other so much we took everyone's weapons away."

In addition to being logically flawed, it's historically inaccurate.  Your elected leaders first imposed strict gun control after WWI because it feared it's returning soldiers and the burgeoning socialist movement.  England's crime and murder rate, despite a citizen being able to carry a pistol, was incredibly low.  It had nothing to do with crime.  

If I wanted a gun, I could apply to have a gun. I and 99.9% of the population are in the same mentality, we don't need them.

In fact it's the US that is the outsider on this. If you take away guns needed for hunting, most safe countries in the world are exactly the same.

[Batman.]

Just now, Steve Moss said:

That's some logic.  "We trust each other so much we took everyone's weapons away."

In addition to being logically flawed, it's historically inaccurate.  Your elected leaders first imposed strict gun control after WWI because it feared it's returning soldiers and the burgeoning socialist movement.  England's crime and murder rate, despite a citizen being able to carry a pistol, was incredibly low.  It had nothing to do with crime.  

Some examples of when citizens carrying a gun has saved lives? Five people got shot by some idiot who was annoyed he'd been sacked the other day, how can you possibly defend this, GI Joe?

You're a caricature of the American Far Right.

[Audax]

All one can say is the genie is out of the bottle on guns, many guns are already in circulation.  Too many in the general population. It might leave law-abiding citizens prey to criminals.

[Batman.]

1 minute ago, Audax said:

All one can say is the genie is out of the bottle on guns, many guns are already in circulation.  Too many in the general population. It might leave law-abiding citizens prey to criminals.

So everyone should have one?

[Audax]

The gun control debate is a non-starter for me. It doesn't affect me.

I'd never debate for the pro-gun side but you look at say a city like Chicago with strict rules; and Chicago has lots of problems in this area though maybe not as bad as they are made out to be. It is a huge city. USA's 3rd largest after NYC and LA.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

Well done Millwall!

Spunk off the highest order:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terror-attack-fk-@#/?-you-im-millwall-hero-roy-larner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html

[Batman.]

10 hours ago, Audax said:

The gun control debate is a non-starter for me. It doesn't affect me.

I'd never debate for the pro-gun side but you look at say a city like Chicago with strict rules; and Chicago has lots of problems in this area though maybe not as bad as they are made out to be. It is a huge city. USA's 3rd largest after NYC and LA.

 

Then why did you get involved? 

Interesting how Steve unwilling to respond to any of my points.

Here as a wind up merchant so he can get some back slapping from his mates I presume. Go on Steve, 5 dead in Florida, what's your worm out? 

[Batman.]

42 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Well done Millwall!

Spunk off the highest order:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terror-attack-fk-@#/?-you-im-millwall-hero-roy-larner-football-fan-lion-of-london-a7775246.html

Almost a comedy sketch in terms of stereotyping Millwall fans, unbelievable story. Incredibly bravery, hope he gets the medal as it seems like his bravery (amongst other things) has saved a fair few lives potentially.

[Husky]

I have to say this - even though the UK is technically not an island any more since that God Damned disastrous channel tunnel was built. The fact we don't have proper land borders with Europe has made smuggling weapons a lot more difficult.

I certainly wouldn't feel as safe in mainland Europe these days without being able to carry a gun as it's damned easy to get hold of them over there and have free reign throughout Europe. Look at France FFS - it seems anyone that's not a rank amateur can get hold of semi-automatic weapons without too much trouble. I suspect they mostly come from Balkans way.

[Batman.]

"Without too much trouble?"

That's not true, they cost thousands of Euros as they are illegal to obtain. Cut of the funding to these groups and you limit them to the small scale attacks (whilst still horrific, are nowhere near the scale of the Paris attacks).

[JBiz]

still find it difficult to believe this was written 50 odd years ago. Couldn't be more apt 

[Husky]

2 hours ago, Batman. said:

"Without too much trouble?"

That's not true, they cost thousands of Euros as they are illegal to obtain. Cut of the funding to these groups and you limit them to the small scale attacks (whilst still horrific, are nowhere near the scale of the Paris attacks).

Funding doesn't seem to be a problem when you've got the super rich Saudis paying for literally all Sunni terrorism.

Of course the #fakenews and government propaganda Mainstream news hardly mention things that. Journalism in that sense has been dead for several years.

Better ask Saudi loving Theresa May and her CONservative party about that one. But of course don't expect anything other than a shrug, mongy laugh or completely unrelated sound-bite.