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:
I appreciate a different perspective (I've never lived in or even been to Europe) and am genuinely curious what you might think a workable approach might be.For Europe there has to be a different approach short term.
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).I appreciate a different perspective (I've never lived in or even been to Europe) and am genuinely curious what you might think a workable approach might be.
See post #77.I appreciate a different perspective (I've never lived in or even been to Europe) and am genuinely curious what you might think a workable approach might be.
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.
Thanks @noway2, I spaced out on that post.See post #77.
I'm not clear on how having weapons would have stopped those maniacs using their vehicle as a tool for murder, what would you do, open fire on every vehicle that is speeding in a area where there are pedestrians?
Those who carry out these attacks are expecting to die, knowing the targets had guns wouldn't have stopped them doing what they did.
I'm not saying that the UK's laws on weapons or their approach to extremism is right, it's not.
The nanny state has allowed extremists a free reign to recruit and grow BUT at this point arming the general populace is not going to solve the problems.
They can start with doing away with 'Human Rights' for ANYONE on a terror watch list - they aren't on a list for no reason, round em up, lock em up and let em rot.
Round up all the 'Religious' leaders that preach hate and show them what hate really is.
Arm the police, give them the tools to fight an enemy that doesn't give a damn about our laws (until they get caught and then suddenly they do..), let the police do what they have to without fear of bureaucratic reprisals.
And our politicians and so called leaders need to grow a backbone, I dont give a crap about hurting the feelings of 'moderate muslims' I do care that my friends and family are no longer safe to walk the streets.
The fear and stress waiting to hear my friends and family are safe each time, it doesn't get easier, it doesn't become 'the norm'.
This war on terror is just that - a war - and its time our leaders started treating it like one.
And those of you who think this will stay in Europe, it won't, they are learning their trade, perfecting their methods on 'soft' targets, when they are ready they will head here to the USA, this country is their ultimate target.
I am English, I am proud to be English but I am not a fool - my Dad was in a boat rescuing soldiers off the beaches at Dunkirk in WW2, its time we found that spirit, pride and willingness to do what is needed - across the world.
This will not stop until overwhelming force is directed at the terrorists, their families, their commnities and their mosques.
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.
Guns don't stop home invasions, rape or violent crime here why would you think it would be a miracle cure anywhere else?
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.
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.
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
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
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.This assumes that families, friends, and mosques are not supportive of, responsible for, and complicit with the readily visible terrorists
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.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.
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.
Totally agree & it's a worldwide problem, the PC brigade (and those who stood by and watched) have created generations of special snowflakes whose biggest fear is Facebook going offline or Snapchat being unavailable or **gasp** someone having the audacity to suggest they should be accountable for their actions...
Pride in your country has become a swear word and now the world is reaping what it has sown and God help us all if we rely on the entitled youth to facilitate the change we need.
Politicians here & in the U.K. are far more concerned with their own personal wealth and interests and so detached from real life they cannot ( and wouldn't) effect the changes needed.
**disclaimer**
Not all of our youth is of the snowflake category but far too many are
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope you see the irony in what you are saying.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. 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.
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.
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.what do you propose?
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.I am actually a little surprised the goat humpers have so much support here
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.
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.
how to pressure the Saudi royal family to resolve this problem
^This^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.
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.