Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Jimmy... Dead., Jun 19, 2014.
yeah unless you happened to look as if you might be from the middle east or muslim
then good luck
'united we stand' has very much been our response to the attacks from what i've seen. which doesn't really mean or achieve anything.
yes, how dare the state not treat women like children. only men are adults and able to defend themselves
any advice of "running" is obviously not tailored to old people anyways.
yep, thank god the cops took the handguns from the Brits so you can wait in a corner for someone to save you.
interestingly, i'd say anti-muslim sentiments are higher now (and not that high tbh) than back in september of 01. maybe someone has looked into this though, that'd be an interesting piece.
united we stand meant we going to bomb everyone, who's with us. which is obviously different than whats going on there, but don't know what the public british stance is. even if it was some massive intra-social integration project that'd be something. but i'm not hearing or reading a damn thing but "WE WON'T HATE EVEN THOSE WHO WANT TO AND HAVE KILLED US" which is just fucking so liberal and terrible
thankfully. there's a lot of anti-immigrant anger here though, which was what fuelled the brexit leave vote.
macron and May have both already said they are going to continue efforts on destroying terrorism outside of the UK -- there's no difference. except the Brits seem to just be indifferent to attacks on their homesoil which is baffling
The tone on the news here has been different with this one, even on more reputable stations they're reporting that it's all out war and that everyone should be very scared all the time because 3 of these incidents happened in 1 country in the space of 3 months. Apparently Australia is tightening security in busy public places because of this even though we haven't had any major terrorist events here whatsoever.
Our cops would take at least 45 minutes to fill out their job safety analysis forms and make sure everything was set up exactly according to their safe work method statement. Last week they took an hour and a half to board a plane that had turned around and come back to Melbourne because a guy on board tried to rush the cockpit yelling that he had a bomb:
Shootings in Chicago aren't really equivalent to terrorists who live, breath and eat murdering random innocent people. I assume you're referring to gang violence @HamburgerBoy?
Weren't there plans to attack an Australia Day celebration but it was stopped beforehand? You're acting like Australia has just gotten lucky and it has nothing to do with our counter-terror programs.
Intent is secondary to action imo. I mean, fair point, the majority of those killed by gang violence are probably human shit, but bystanders being killed or innocents being targeted isn't exactly rare either.
Im aware of plots being foiled yeah. But should the entire Western world be on full hysterical alert because of England?
I think it's fucking hilarious that Americans worry about homicide at all, let alone a tiny minority of homicide committed for terroristic purposes, when negligent driving kills 5 times as many people every year, and when things like DUI are far more likely to victimize a random person than homicide which primarily targets family of the murderer, and when the penalty for killing multiple people DUI can be just probation if your lawyer is good enough. People have totally fucked up priorities.
Well no, even England should calm down honestly speaking.
But on the other hand, I don't really see terror attacks being on a downwards trend either.
Malevolent violence is only limited by what the targets are willing to do to remain alive.
It's the old more likely to be killed by a toaster than terrorism meme.
Well if a company were organized specifically to manufacture toasters that would kill me, I'd want to know about it and do something.
Furthermore, I doubt that blacks back in the lynching days were weighing up the threat of malevolent violence against accidental harm and thinking "my priorities are terrible, after all I'm more likely to be killed by a shark or a drunk driver."
Don't understand your first sentence.
Lynching had more effects than just immediate death; it was a directed, societal use of mob violence to keep an entire class of people below. When a person murders another person today, it's probably because a man was angry at his girlfriend/wife after months of previous violence, or because the regular family quarrel got a little more violent than usual, or etc. The vast majority of homicide affects no one.
My first sentence I am saying, random drunk driving is limited violence, alcohol wears off, cars crash or run out of fuel, roads can only put you in a position to hurt so many people.
However, if a jihadist is not limited by police, security guards, national defence etc they will go on to kill every single human in their location.
Therefore I am saying an unbalanced focus on terrorist violence is justified because malevolent violence actively seeks out victims until it is stopped.
If all barriers were removed from the path of terrorists you'd fast find that the numbers begin to equal between malevolent violence and accidental violence.
You're talking about immediate response, I'm talking about punishment/sentencing. Anyone on a killing rampage is likely to continue until physically stopped, obviously they're more dangerous on an immediate timescale, duh. Similarly, people that go on killing rampages usually do so knowing they will be killed at the end of their rampage. The disincentives against DUI/driving while texting are minuscule in comparison.
ah but you don't know for sure that this van driver wasn't a DUI!
How often do you hear about terrorists and spree killers being stopped by armed civilians in the US though? Events would have taken place in the same way if those guys did it in New York - a few dozen people injured or killed before the killers are shot by the cops. If anything, the Londoners are lucky the attackers couldn't acquire handguns, and had to resort to knives.
Guns don't work as a deterrent either, since all spree killers have already come to terms with dying, obviously.
how often do you hear of attacks in pro-gun-zones?
http://freedomoutpost.com/2-jihadists-killed-attempting-mass-murder-at-muslim-art-contest-in-texas/ -- likely not the best source, but there is an example. and one would think with our much higher muslim population in the U.S. that we would likely have higher amount of attacks (~2.5mil to ~3.5mil), especially ones that use guns as violence.
if Londoners are so lucky, why aren't there more gun-violence-led-muslim attacks in the U.S.? Especially with higher body counts? We had the night club shooter. And he wasn't even considered to be part of ISIS
if you don't think security measures, whether that ranges from civilian handguns to police force armed to the teeth, doesn't effect the plans of attckers, you're being very naive.
aren't there less muslim attacks in the US in general, regardless of method?