FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Manchester arena Bomb II
Manchester arena Bomb II
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
"
Lol..... that could explain why all those white Brits come to southern Europe to get a tan !  
Or.... they might be curious of what the Al Andaluz ex/future Caliphate looks like !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
"
.
See that's the bit i don't get, they fully understand the relationship between Christianity and Christian terrorism and wars but then seem to be completely stuck on what the problem is with other religions?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
"
Once again youre wrong.
The closing went: some people dont know what theyre talking about, others do.
No ones saying Islamic terrorists arent evil and wrong. Some people are saying individuals can be evil and wrong and its ludicrous to say 2 billion people are all supporting Islamic terrorism and racism is bad.
You cant judge the British on the evil their countrymen perpetrated over hundreds of years even if it extends to our lifetimes. That would be wrong. Just as its wrong to say muslims are the problem.
Individuals and certain groups are the problem and thats what needs to be tackled. Anything else is an excuse to be hateful and only increases violence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
"
Don't forget circumsision is evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. "
.
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've made the mistake of reading both threads. Far too many need to show some respect and grow up.
My sincerest thoughts go to the victims, their families and friends. Any other thoughts I or any one else on here may have are utterly irrelevent right now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Once again youre wrong.
The closing went: some people dont know what theyre talking about, others do.
No ones saying Islamic terrorists arent evil and wrong. Some people are saying individuals can be evil and wrong and its ludicrous to say 2 billion people are all supporting Islamic terrorism and racism is bad.
You cant judge the British on the evil their countrymen perpetrated over hundreds of years even if it extends to our lifetimes. That would be wrong. Just as its wrong to say muslims are the problem.
Individuals and certain groups are the problem and thats what needs to be tackled. Anything else is an excuse to be hateful and only increases violence."
I would say , and have said Islam is the problem !
While interpretation is a big part of it , and yes some abuse it , it doesnt take from the fact the the fundamentals of that religion are so bad that even the moderates face an uphill battle to stay moderate !
Here is a great example from Canada!
Please see the clip its long but very revealing of the challenges faced by moderates and the government ! unfortunately its has a lot of parallels with the UK !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkBAH0Znm-g |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Once again youre wrong.
The closing went: some people dont know what theyre talking about, others do.
No ones saying Islamic terrorists arent evil and wrong. Some people are saying individuals can be evil and wrong and its ludicrous to say 2 billion people are all supporting Islamic terrorism and racism is bad.
You cant judge the British on the evil their countrymen perpetrated over hundreds of years even if it extends to our lifetimes. That would be wrong. Just as its wrong to say muslims are the problem.
Individuals and certain groups are the problem and thats what needs to be tackled. Anything else is an excuse to be hateful and only increases violence."
No one is advocating promotion of prejudice against any group..this is always the insinuation followed by a few clumsy parallels that often lack any applicable salience or equivalency culled from the annals of history and banded around like a deflective epithet designed to derail and stigmatise others.
some realities are harsh and unflattering and must be faced, a few glib rebuttals about mythical present day Christians or members of other faiths commitimg some sort of historical slight doesn't change or enrich the discourse.
I can certainly understand people like you are well intentioned but obfuscation and deflection doesn't change what the world is facing presently. I read you back accurately. Deflection, non sequitur.. vacuous empty cliched neoliberal piety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous! "
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons?"
Cutting off the labia is equivalent to someone removing your glans (penis helmet). There's no medical benefit or need. It is mutilation and disfigurement that will impair a women's sexual anatomy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons?"
.
I never mentioned doing it for medical reasons did I?.
I talked about doing it for religious reasons!.
I've got a week old baby boy asleep upstairs, is it ok to get the calving knife out of the draw and whip his foreskin off just for the hell of it? Would it make me a bad person?. What if wait till morning and take him off to an old guy I know who's done a few before and he whips it off while saying a prayer and I then bury the foreskin to appease my god, bad person still or a good person doing bad things in the name of religion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons?.
I never mentioned doing it for medical reasons did I?.
I talked about doing it for religious reasons!.
I've got a week old baby boy asleep upstairs, is it ok to get the calving knife out of the draw and whip his foreskin off just for the hell of it? Would it make me a bad person?. What if wait till morning and take him off to an old guy I know who's done a few before and he whips it off while saying a prayer and I then bury the foreskin to appease my god, bad person still or a good person doing bad things in the name of religion"
You include the Jewish too? So why 59% of newborns in the US do it? 79% a few years back. I'm assumin g the parents chose to not the child. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Once again youre wrong.
The closing went: some people dont know what theyre talking about, others do.
No ones saying Islamic terrorists arent evil and wrong. Some people are saying individuals can be evil and wrong and its ludicrous to say 2 billion people are all supporting Islamic terrorism and racism is bad.
You cant judge the British on the evil their countrymen perpetrated over hundreds of years even if it extends to our lifetimes. That would be wrong. Just as its wrong to say muslims are the problem.
Individuals and certain groups are the problem and thats what needs to be tackled. Anything else is an excuse to be hateful and only increases violence.
No one is advocating promotion of prejudice against any group..this is always the insinuation followed by a few clumsy parallels that often lack any applicable salience or equivalency culled from the annals of history and banded around like a deflective epithet designed to derail and stigmatise others.
some realities are harsh and unflattering and must be faced, a few glib rebuttals about mythical present day Christians or members of other faiths commitimg some sort of historical slight doesn't change or enrich the discourse.
I can certainly understand people like you are well intentioned but obfuscation and deflection doesn't change what the world is facing presently. I read you back accurately. Deflection, non sequitur.. vacuous empty cliched neoliberal piety."
What deflection?
Islamic terrorism is bad. Loyalist terrorism in the north was bad. Nationalist terrorism in the north was bad. Seperatist terrorism in Spain is bad. Terrorism is bad.
There is nothing inherent in Islam that is dangerous. Violent means excused by religious goals are common throughout the world and history. Islam is not unique in this.
The more progressive and modernised a society is the less violence takes place. Africa is poor and it gives rise to warlords who crave power. The middle east (bar the oil rich) are poor and they have a religious spin on their violence. Why? Because African religion was largely replaced with western christianity which is now modern and civilised.
Islam is not the problem. The quality of life in these places is the problem. To some smaller degree mental health is the issue.
If we focus on what happened in Manchester we'll either see mental health issues, or social isolation to some degree or influence from foreign sources. Likely all 3. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
"
Or....... it was pointed out that ISIS scum and there supporters do not represent ALL muslims. Followed by someone comparing the attack to IRA terrorism. Followed by others trying to defend the IRA for doing similar.
In other words it degenerated in to pointless name calling....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Once again youre wrong.
The closing went: some people dont know what theyre talking about, others do.
No ones saying Islamic terrorists arent evil and wrong. Some people are saying individuals can be evil and wrong and its ludicrous to say 2 billion people are all supporting Islamic terrorism and racism is bad.
You cant judge the British on the evil their countrymen perpetrated over hundreds of years even if it extends to our lifetimes. That would be wrong. Just as its wrong to say muslims are the problem.
Individuals and certain groups are the problem and thats what needs to be tackled. Anything else is an excuse to be hateful and only increases violence.
No one is advocating promotion of prejudice against any group..this is always the insinuation followed by a few clumsy parallels that often lack any applicable salience or equivalency culled from the annals of history and banded around like a deflective epithet designed to derail and stigmatise others.
some realities are harsh and unflattering and must be faced, a few glib rebuttals about mythical present day Christians or members of other faiths commitimg some sort of historical slight doesn't change or enrich the discourse.
I can certainly understand people like you are well intentioned but obfuscation and deflection doesn't change what the world is facing presently. I read you back accurately. Deflection, non sequitur.. vacuous empty cliched neoliberal piety.
What deflection?
Islamic terrorism is bad. Loyalist terrorism in the north was bad. Nationalist terrorism in the north was bad. Seperatist terrorism in Spain is bad. Terrorism is bad.
There is nothing inherent in Islam that is dangerous. Violent means excused by religious goals are common throughout the world and history. Islam is not unique in this.
The more progressive and modernised a society is the less violence takes place. Africa is poor and it gives rise to warlords who crave power. The middle east (bar the oil rich) are poor and they have a religious spin on their violence. Why? Because African religion was largely replaced with western christianity which is now modern and civilised.
Islam is not the problem. The quality of life in these places is the problem. To some smaller degree mental health is the issue.
If we focus on what happened in Manchester we'll either see mental health issues, or social isolation to some degree or influence from foreign sources. Likely all 3."
Western Christianity?
Ethiopia was Christian a good hundred years before Ireland!
The Ethiopian Christian church is one of the oldest continuous churches in existence!
Islam does play a significant role, throughout it's history it is a malevolence that has defined itself by conquest, genocide and subjugation of others.
It's a parasitic cult that leaches the worth and stability out of every society it contaminates..
The only reason any Muslim nations have a passing veneer of stability is through being given ultimatums to toe a line (ending the Muslim slave trade of black Africans who refused to convert to Islam)..
It goes on and on. Your attitude is laudable but not reflective of realities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons?.
I never mentioned doing it for medical reasons did I?.
I talked about doing it for religious reasons!.
I've got a week old baby boy asleep upstairs, is it ok to get the calving knife out of the draw and whip his foreskin off just for the hell of it? Would it make me a bad person?. What if wait till morning and take him off to an old guy I know who's done a few before and he whips it off while saying a prayer and I then bury the foreskin to appease my god, bad person still or a good person doing bad things in the name of religion
You include the Jewish too? So why 59% of newborns in the US do it? 79% a few years back. I'm assumin g the parents chose to not the child."
.
So what so half of America are fucking idiots since when did loads of people doing something constitute it being right?.
You've still not answered the question I asked.
I've got a one week old baby boy asleep upstairs, should I get the calving knife and whip his foreskin off tonight yes or no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Or....... it was pointed out that ISIS scum and there supporters do not represent ALL muslims. Followed by someone comparing the attack to IRA terrorism. Followed by others trying to defend the IRA for doing similar.
In other words it degenerated in to pointless name calling......."
I don't defend ANY organisation of Terror. The IRA commited some truely repellent crimes.. it's a false equivalency to compare them with Isis.. they did not use religious or a divine conceit as justification, they used constitutional position..
They were Marxist nationalist socialists guerrilla terrorists.. not "Catholic" terrorists as some have lazily implied. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Or....... it was pointed out that ISIS scum and there supporters do not represent ALL muslims. Followed by someone comparing the attack to IRA terrorism. Followed by others trying to defend the IRA for doing similar.
In other words it degenerated in to pointless name calling.......
I don't defend ANY organisation of Terror. The IRA commited some truely repellent crimes.. it's a false equivalency to compare them with Isis.. they did not use religious or a divine conceit as justification, they used constitutional position..
They were Marxist nationalist socialists guerrilla terrorists.. not "Catholic" terrorists as some have lazily implied."
Some did.....also wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"Basically the gist of the closing remarks went something like.. all white Christians bad , all dark complexioned Muslims misunderstood lovable rogues who're victims of some sort of elaborate institutional smear campaign..
Don't forget circumsision is evil. .
You making light humour out of the subject of child mutilation is really in poor taste, are you also in favour of cutting off young girls clitorous!
Of course not. But is it mutilation if it's for medical reasons?.
I never mentioned doing it for medical reasons did I?.
I talked about doing it for religious reasons!.
I've got a week old baby boy asleep upstairs, is it ok to get the calving knife out of the draw and whip his foreskin off just for the hell of it? Would it make me a bad person?. What if wait till morning and take him off to an old guy I know who's done a few before and he whips it off while saying a prayer and I then bury the foreskin to appease my god, bad person still or a good person doing bad things in the name of religion
You include the Jewish too? So why 59% of newborns in the US do it? 79% a few years back. I'm assumin g the parents chose to not the child."
Christian extremism. See: Kellogg. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur. "
Its cowardly to attack someone weaker than you, armed when they are not, when they dont expect it. He made children his victims. And he likely did so thinking that he would get incredible rewards or he had a mental illness and wasnt fully coherent. None of this is brave.
Its not brave to rob a pensioner with the risk they might be armed and shoot you. Its cowardly.
That said it is correct to call him a coward and belittle him because its part PR to reduce the effect of the other side making him out to be a hero. The problem is that not enough else is being done to prevent someone mentally vulnerable being drawn into this stuff.
If we want to prevent these attacks then we have to look at the earliest causes for radicalisation and stop them. And that doesnt mean caving in to terrorists demands. It means examining the situation and seeing if there are legitimate issues too.
Catholics in Northern Ireland were subject to violence, murder and denied their civil rights which led to the reformation of the IRA. Once these issues were dealt with support for the terrorist campaign receeded.
Thats why its important not to, incorrectly, blame all muslims and islam for these atrocrities. Not only is it wrong and an excuse for bigotry, it will also isolate and build distrust founded on hatred with your fellow british citizens. Thats what happened in Northern Ireland and we need to learn these lessons.
Reducing division, false accusations and lies, not lashing out and victimising innocents who are as sickened as the rest of us is what makes societies stronger and reduces the potential for more of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All the evidence coming out today points to people within the Muslim community knowing this guy was showing clear signs of being radicalized and they did very little to report it until after the event...
All of the security services are saying it is the communities responsibility to help identify these people - they cannot do it on their own.
To the Irish fella calling people bigots! Go and read your own posts! The facts are becoming clear and your points deal in absolutes and self righteousness..
Yes there are many good Muslims (the majority) and I would never wish them ill will, but they do not report on their own and it is clear many of the Muslim groups have objected against UK government policies on counter terrorism measures for over 10 years.
I wonder how the Irish would act if the extremist did this dreadful terrorist act in their country! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"There's more than one Irish guy on here who like to slag the Brits off .
Yes, I agree - the hypocrisy is resounding from many of the Irish commenting on here. I guess we expected better..."
I can see your point... but in my experience its more about personality then nationality !
An apologist is just that !
Doesn't matter where he comes from ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Kiddies going to a concert AV been murdered and first thing sum ppl do is cum on here saying don't blame all Muslims Iv still to read were anyone as but the fact is turning a blind eye in the Muslim cominity goes on and no point denying it it boils my piss |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wen there's a terrorist strike like this I think we r all British wud rather we stuck tgether "
We are all british regardlesss of race religon or skin colour.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Wen there's a terrorist strike like this I think we r all British wud rather we stuck tgether We are all british regardlesss of race religon or skin colour."
Are you still Bitish when you want Sharia law to replace common law ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Kiddies going to a concert AV been murdered and first thing sum ppl do is cum on here saying don't blame all Muslims Iv still to read were anyone as but the fact is turning a blind eye in the Muslim cominity goes on and no point denying it it boils my piss "
Actually one of the first responses i saw is "all terrorists are muslims".
Are all black people drug dealing gang members.Should the black community be blamed for the actions of others. .  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"Kiddies going to a concert AV been murdered and first thing sum ppl do is cum on here saying don't blame all Muslims Iv still to read were anyone as but the fact is turning a blind eye in the Muslim cominity goes on and no point denying it it boils my piss "
Actually, the first thing that I noticed was posts expressing horror at the events and well wishing for the victims and their families.
This was followed closely by a certain group of posters calling for a holy war of their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur. "
Often disagree with you over things but on this I am totally onside with you. I have said for years that you can never defeat people who are prepared to do this sort of attack and blow themselves to pieces, with bullets or bombs, it is a mental process, It must take a tremendous amount of strength to do it. They are still bastards though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wen there's a terrorist strike like this I think we r all British wud rather we stuck tgether We are all british regardlesss of race religon or skin colour.
Are you still Bitish when you want Sharia law to replace common law ? "
Are you British when you want to ban same sex marriage or those who want to deport all muslims. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Wen there's a terrorist strike like this I think we r all British wud rather we stuck tgether We are all british regardlesss of race religon or skin colour.
Are you still Bitish when you want Sharia law to replace common law ? Are you British when you want to ban same sex marriage or those who want to deport all muslims. "
No ! But that is why PC blanket statements are BS !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I"
If you were a Muslim reading all the hate against muslims on facebook.Wouldn't you be fucking terrified .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yes of corse I wud but there it goes again 22ppl died sum
Little kids and yr fuming over Muslims reading shit on face book isn't there shit on the Internet of Isis beheading Christians but I just choose not to wach it same as I choose not to read shit on face book |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I"
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Often disagree with you over things but on this I am totally onside with you. I have said for years that you can never defeat people who are prepared to do this sort of attack and blow themselves to pieces, with bullets or bombs, it is a mental process, It must take a tremendous amount of strength to do it. They are still bastards though."
Thank you for sticking your head above the wall with me.
There is no doubt in my mind that they delusional and those that radicalise and inspire others to such acts are totally depraved. But I disagree with you when you say there is no military solution. I believe there is only a military solution. However the problem is it requires an equal level of violence directed at those who inspire, direct and finance the jihadists. But while Trump and the other western leaders are rushing off to meet them, bowing and curtsying in order to sell them with billions of dollars of arms and ammunition and buy their oil nothing will change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt"
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wen there's a terrorist strike like this I think we r all British wud rather we stuck tgether We are all british regardlesss of race religon or skin colour.
Are you still Bitish when you want Sharia law to replace common law ? Are you British when you want to ban same sex marriage or those who want to deport all muslims. "
Are you British when you advocate Female genital mutilation or honour killings within your family? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend. "
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
"
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it. "
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
Talking of Jeremy Corbyn....
Feb 15th 2003
“This (Iraq war) will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation, that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations.”
He voted against the very acts that have spawned most of the problems that we are experiencing today. Theresa May voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Jeremy Corbyn very publically voted against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
"
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Talking of Jeremy Corbyn....
Feb 15th 2003
“This (Iraq war) will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation, that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations.”
He voted against the very acts that have spawned most of the problems that we are experiencing today. Theresa May voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Jeremy Corbyn very publically voted against."
So did George Galloway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Talking of Jeremy Corbyn....
Feb 15th 2003
“This (Iraq war) will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation, that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations.”
He voted against the very acts that have spawned most of the problems that we are experiencing today. Theresa May voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Jeremy Corbyn very publically voted against.
So did George Galloway. "
Hmmmm he's gone Quiert !
Not heard him condemning the Scum !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question. "
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
"
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur. "
Bollocks , they are cowards and scum and i make no apology for calling someone who deliberately targets innocent children in the name of their non existent imaginary friend.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Bollocks , they are cowards and scum and i make no apology for calling someone who deliberately targets innocent children in the name of their non existent imaginary friend.
"
So when was the last time you had the courage to blow yourself up for some thing yiu believe in?
That's like saying suicide is the cowards way out.
I want some one to explain to me why any sane parent was letting a teenager go to the kind of over and inappropriately sexualized pap churned out by ms Grande. I'm an adult. I'm on a swingers site. I watch porn. I've changed the channel on her videos cause they made me squirm.
I've always considered the risk of something happening to me in a public place (and by something i mean every thing from bomb, though natural disaster and including tragic accident) to be the price I pay for living in a free society. Lifd us a risk and troops or extra police on the street do not make me feel safer. They make me worry for the future of the country. I do not feel unsafe to start with.
I belive we create the kind of society we want by living in it not by forcing it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur.
Bollocks , they are cowards and scum and i make no apology for calling someone who deliberately targets innocent children in the name of their non existent imaginary friend.
"
any idea on how many bombs are being dropped on innocent children in middle east now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fucking hell any same parent now parents r to blame r they wtf unreal the loonies on here so Defo wasn't the cowardly scums fault with the bomb is that wot yr saying "
That's not actually what I said.
I certainly don't understand the hysteria and overreaction to the bomb though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Fucking hell any same parent now parents r to blame r they wtf unreal the loonies on here so Defo wasn't the cowardly scums fault with the bomb is that wot yr saying
That's not actually what I said.
I certainly don't understand the hysteria and overreaction to the bomb though."
I'm amazed you could work out what they were saying to be honest.
But it's good to know they might have been outraged enough to have sent a condolence card to the parents of the 68 kids amongst the 126 people killed in the bus bomb last month in Aleppo.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fucking hell u don't understand it explain ppls 22 dead 59 injured lots of them kids wtf "
How many people died in syria yesterday?
How many people have the US police shot this year?
How many people will die in RTAs this year?
How is Manchester worse?
Events like this just get me frustrated at not getting it. This mass 'woe is us' thing puzzles me. Life happens and then you die. Shit happens but its something you deal with and move on. Standing about waving candles in the air for someobe you never met seems bizzare to me.
And no I did not say the parents were to blame although i suspect i might have a tiny bit more sympathy if it had been an better artist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Bollocks , they are cowards and scum and i make no apology for calling someone who deliberately targets innocent children in the name of their non existent imaginary friend.
So when was the last time you had the courage to blow yourself up for some thing yiu believe in?
That's like saying suicide is the cowards way out.
I want some one to explain to me why any sane parent was letting a teenager go to the kind of over and inappropriately sexualized pap churned out by ms Grande. I'm an adult. I'm on a swingers site. I watch porn. I've changed the channel on her videos cause they made me squirm.
I've always considered the risk of something happening to me in a public place (and by something i mean every thing from bomb, though natural disaster and including tragic accident) to be the price I pay for living in a free society. Lifd us a risk and troops or extra police on the street do not make me feel safer. They make me worry for the future of the country. I do not feel unsafe to start with.
I belive we create the kind of society we want by living in it not by forcing it."
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fucking hell u don't understand it explain ppls 22 dead 59 injured lots of them kids wtf
How many people died in syria yesterday?
How many people have the US police shot this year?
How many people will die in RTAs this year?
How is Manchester worse?
Events like this just get me frustrated at not getting it. This mass 'woe is us' thing puzzles me. Life happens and then you die. Shit happens but its something you deal with and move on. Standing about waving candles in the air for someobe you never met seems bizzare to me.
And no I did not say the parents were to blame although i suspect i might have a tiny bit more sympathy if it had been an better artist."
The artist who played the concert at the bataclan theatre in Paris last year when the Islamic extremist committed a terrorist atrocity there, were they better artists and were those victims worthy of your sympathy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?"
Reading your posts on here its clear you've got a lot of problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process. "
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, they should be condemned. Especially by someone who wants to be Prime minister of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn should hang his head in shame after that interview. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?"
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process.
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, they should be condemned. Especially by someone who wants to be Prime minister of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn should hang his head in shame after that interview. "
The subtleties of peace negotiations are completely lost on you aren't they Centaur?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process.
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, they should be condemned. Especially by someone who wants to be Prime minister of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn should hang his head in shame after that interview. "
He condemned them. Watch the interview. We're you fighting for human rights killed n the 70's? Did you supp let Thatcher having tea with dictators? If not you should be ashamed of yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt"
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i might have a tiny bit more sympathy if it had been an better artist."
What a callous, inhumane thing to say. There are parents involved who still don't know if their daughter is dead or alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish. "
Ok. So what do you read then that has you so scared that when someone says they don't feel unsafe to begin with that you think they might be to scared to open their front door in the morning? Or do you just lack comprehension skills?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process.
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, they should be condemned. Especially by someone who wants to be Prime minister of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn should hang his head in shame after that interview.
The subtleties of peace negotiations are completely lost on you aren't they Centaur?
-Matt"
Peace negotiations, lol. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table is because they knew they were beaten militarily. It had nothing to do with subtlety in language or being a terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnel are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur.
Bollocks , they are cowards and scum and i make no apology for calling someone who deliberately targets innocent children in the name of their non existent imaginary friend.
"
when the Europeans when the the west to colonised them they used to the bible and say these people need to know the one true God ....if you believe this terrorism is about relagion then you are as stupid as the slaves who believe the Europeans then...every war is about profit and lost somewhere somehow money is behind every war including this one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""i might have a tiny bit more sympathy if it had been an better artist."
What a callous, inhumane thing to say. There are parents involved who still don't know if their daughter is dead or alive. "
Well said. Some people have no compassion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The artist who played the concert at the bataclan theatre in Paris last year when the Islamic extremist committed a terrorist atrocity there, were they better artists and were those victims worthy of your sympathy? "
Actually never heard their music so I can't comment.
In the UK you're more likely to be hit by a bus than be in a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die putting on your trousers! Yes its not a good thing and indicative of flaws in joined up thinking in global politics but a sense of perspective please. I arrived in work 40 minutes early today because BBC breakfast was all meaningless spin and speculation. Time for a return to sanity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But there u go again it's as if Muslims been labelled terrorists is more shocking to sum ppl than little kids been blew up wtf . At the moment all terrorists r Muslim but that's not saying all Muslims r terrorists is it I
No. Not all terrorists at the moment are Muslim. Please stop spreading falsehoods. It does nothing to solve the underlying problems.
-Matt
Well it would help if people like Jeremy Corbyn called the IRA terrorist's and condemned them when asked a straight question about it, which he refused to do only just last weekend.
He said and was quoted by Sky 'i condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA'..
pretty clear and easy to understand..
he also met with the IRA during the troubles as he and the Conservatives who were also in dialogue knew the answer lay not in more conflict but in talks..
Corbyn was repeatedly asked to outright condemn the IRA last weekend and he repeatedly refused. He said he condemned the bombing but he refused to condemn the IRA. Secondly the idea that Corbyn played any part in the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly laughable. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table in the late 1990's is because they were defeated militarily and they knew it.
is the phrase as stated above and clearly available for you to access on the web too complicated for you to understand..?
its crystal clear..
it wasn't a suggestion that he had played a part in the end of the troubles, it was simply put that he and other's knew that dialogue was the way forward..
Just for you as you don't seem to get it, here is the quotes word for word when Corbyn was interviewed by Sophie Ridge on sky news last weekend.....
Sophie Ridge = "so you can condemn unequivocally the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Look, bombing is wrong, of course all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it"
Sophie Ridge = "you are condemning all bombing, but can you condemn the IRA without equating it to...?"
Corbyn = "No I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned"
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA?"
Corbyn = "Wait a minute, can you allow me to finish please [talks about peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "But you condemn the IRA, who were responsible for....."
Corbyn = "I just condemned all those that do bombing, all those on both sides"
Sophie Ridge = "But you can condemn the IRA who were responsible for 60% of the deaths during the troubles with the British security services who were responsible for 10%?
Corbyn = There were loyalist bombs as well. I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA [explains Labour role in peace process]
Sophie Ridge = "so you don't believe you did anything wrong and that you have nothing to apologise for?"
Corbyn = "I represent a constituency that had many people who had been criminalised. "
As you can see Corbyn was deliberately trying to avoid the question and was dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to avoid condemning the IRA outright. He had a number of occasions to do so and refused. 5 times he was asked to condemn unequivocally the IRA and 5 times he attempted to dodge and avoid the question.
all i see is Rupert Murdoch and an interviewer too stupid to realise that i condemn all bombing is or should be enough for most people..
maybe he should have gone a la Trump and said really condemn ..
give it a bit of gravitas or drag it down to her level..
This.
Nobody needs to condemn the IRA, they just need to condemn the bombings. To single out the IRA would be counter productive, especially if you wanted, say, a peace process.
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, they should be condemned. Especially by someone who wants to be Prime minister of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn should hang his head in shame after that interview.
The subtleties of peace negotiations are completely lost on you aren't they Centaur?
-Matt
Peace negotiations, lol. The only reason the IRA came to the negotiating table is because they knew they were beaten militarily. It had nothing to do with subtlety in language or being a terrorist apologist like Corbyn and McDonnel are. "
id say after 9/11 a lot of organisations were put on a terrorist hitlist, with funds being stopped on a lot of groups.
ira had major backing from Usa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish.
Ok. So what do you read then that has you so scared that when someone says they don't feel unsafe to begin with that you think they might be to scared to open their front door in the morning? Or do you just lack comprehension skills?
-Matt"
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish.
Ok. So what do you read then that has you so scared that when someone says they don't feel unsafe to begin with that you think they might be to scared to open their front door in the morning? Or do you just lack comprehension skills?
-Matt
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills? "
Why does considering risks equate to fear in your head?
We consider risks in everything we do. It is how we stay alive. Does that mean we are fearful of everything? No.
You have been programmed by whatever propaganda you seem to swallow to see fear in everything. Not everyone else sees things the same way you do.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills? "
Ahh i see your point. However I also stated that I don't feel unsafe. Risk does not automatically lead to fear. I'm more troubled by the invasion of privacy in airport securuty than I am by any bomb on a plane.
However I will try and make it as clear as i can. Living in a free society means we all take the tiny risk of something like this happening in exchange for the freedom. That is the price we pay. I think its worth it and that risk does nit scare me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The artist who played the concert at the bataclan theatre in Paris last year when the Islamic extremist committed a terrorist atrocity there, were they better artists and were those victims worthy of your sympathy?
Actually never heard their music so I can't comment.
In the UK you're more likely to be hit by a bus than be in a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die putting on your trousers! Yes its not a good thing and indicative of flaws in joined up thinking in global politics but a sense of perspective please. I arrived in work 40 minutes early today because BBC breakfast was all meaningless spin and speculation. Time for a return to sanity."
It's ridiculous to compare what you listed to a terrorist attack. You have an element of control over whether you get hit by a bus or not, you can make sure the road is clear before you attempt to cross it. As for the trousers one, just laughable, put your trousers on slowly and carefully if you are that worried about it. It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
...in fact I'd take it a step further. If you were to wonder "shall I do this bunji jump?" And then think "well actually I have more risk of being killed crossing the road" and hence do the jump. I'd say that is the opposite of fear. That is demonstrably not letting fear (jumping off a bridge with knicker elastic around your ankles would be naturally scary) get in the way of your life.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
The artist who played the concert at the bataclan theatre in Paris last year when the Islamic extremist committed a terrorist atrocity there, were they better artists and were those victims worthy of your sympathy?
Actually never heard their music so I can't comment.
In the UK you're more likely to be hit by a bus than be in a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die putting on your trousers! Yes its not a good thing and indicative of flaws in joined up thinking in global politics but a sense of perspective please. I arrived in work 40 minutes early today because BBC breakfast was all meaningless spin and speculation. Time for a return to sanity.
It's ridiculous to compare what you listed to a terrorist attack. You have an element of control over whether you get hit by a bus or not, you can make sure the road is clear before you attempt to cross it. As for the trousers one, just laughable, put your trousers on slowly and carefully if you are that worried about it. It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day. "
Is this the point foxychick comes in hand wringing and saying "you wud AV explain that parents of run over kids by bus!"
Or the 5 killed on the M6 this morning. I doubt they had a choice in that.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day. "
But that's the point. I do not worry about them because i know the risks are vanishingly small and just part of lids . And i don't get why other people do worry about them and hence with mass hysteria. Maybe it's the same reason people buy lottery tickets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish.
Ok. So what do you read then that has you so scared that when someone says they don't feel unsafe to begin with that you think they might be to scared to open their front door in the morning? Or do you just lack comprehension skills?
-Matt
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills?
Why does considering risks equate to fear in your head?
We consider risks in everything we do. It is how we stay alive. Does that mean we are fearful of everything? No.
You have been programmed by whatever propaganda you seem to swallow to see fear in everything. Not everyone else sees things the same way you do.
-Matt"
Well i can honestly say i have never been worried or even thought about risk putting my trousers on. _candium has clearly thought about it at some point otherwise why would she even mention it on here? Living your life constantly thinking of risks and looking for escape routes in buildings seems like a pretty sad state of affairs and is no way to live or enjoy life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
Jeez it's a wonder you pluck up the courage to step outside your own front door each day.
Err.. don't follow. Why would i have a problem?
Because you said you don't feel unsafe to begin with. Centaur and foxychick can't fathom that. It doesn't fit with what they read in the Daily Mail, so the only thing they can do is assume the problem is you. It just doesn't fit their worldview otherwise.
-Matt
I don't actually read the Daily Mail so the entire premise of your whole post is bullshit from start to finish.
Ok. So what do you read then that has you so scared that when someone says they don't feel unsafe to begin with that you think they might be to scared to open their front door in the morning? Or do you just lack comprehension skills?
-Matt
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills?
Why does considering risks equate to fear in your head?
We consider risks in everything we do. It is how we stay alive. Does that mean we are fearful of everything? No.
You have been programmed by whatever propaganda you seem to swallow to see fear in everything. Not everyone else sees things the same way you do.
-Matt
Well i can honestly say i have never been worried or even thought about risk putting my trousers on. _candium has clearly thought about it at some point otherwise why would she even mention it on here? Living your life constantly thinking of risks and looking for escape routes in buildings seems like a pretty sad state of affairs and is no way to live or enjoy life. "
You clearly, despite her repeatedly explaining it to you, fail to understand the point she is making about risks being so small as to not worry about them.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day.
But that's the point. I do not worry about them because i know the risks are vanishingly small and just part of lids . And i don't get why other people do worry about them and hence with mass hysteria. Maybe it's the same reason people buy lottery tickets. "
Why mention them on here then if you're not worried about them? You brought it up it suggests you are worried about daft things like putting your trousers on each day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
" It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day.
But that's the point. I do not worry about them because i know the risks are vanishingly small and just part of lids . And i don't get why other people do worry about them and hence with mass hysteria. Maybe it's the same reason people buy lottery tickets.
Why mention them on here then if you're not worried about them? You brought it up it suggests you are worried about daft things like putting your trousers on each day. "
Good grief. Give your brain cell a rest, man!
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".....she even mention it on here?"
Because i assume the mass hysteria stens from societies inaccurate perception of risk and probablity. I would have thought the whole country knows by now how dangerous trousers are as that statistic was everywhere.
" Living your life constantly thinking of risks and looking for escape routes in buildings seems like a pretty sad state of affairs and is no way to live or enjoy life. "
As matt has already said we all function by assessing rusks before we do things. Its part of how human psychology functions. Generally we do it subconsciously. As for escape routes... nope. Only during fire safety training or if forced to attend an ariana grande concert. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable "
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable "
I did not attach blame.
But please do explain how these 22 death and 56 jnjured people are so different from all the other people who die or are injured across the planet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt"
Oh wait. No sorry my mistake. I'd temporarily drifted off into your imaginary world.
Back to reality. I don't think I've seen anyone blame the victims on this thread at all.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt"
Yes they are! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
Oh wait. No sorry my mistake. I'd temporarily drifted off into your imaginary world.
Back to reality. I don't think I've seen anyone blame the victims on this thread at all.
-Matt"
Learn how yo comprehend then. My previous post stands. I'm out of here you and tle dumber sicken me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
Oh wait. No sorry my mistake. I'd temporarily drifted off into your imaginary world.
Back to reality. I don't think I've seen anyone blame the victims on this thread at all.
-Matt
Learn how yo comprehend then. My previous post stands. I'm out of here you and tle dumber sicken me."
I can comprehend just fine thank you. Please point out where anyone on this thread has blamed the victims of the attack and said it is their fault for being there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt"
If the cap fits you can wear it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
If the cap fits you can wear it. "
But it doesn't fit me. Or anyone else on this thread. No-one has said the victims are at fault for being there.
It is just false outrage by someone who can't comprehend the points being made.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" It seems like you live your life in a constant state of fear if these are the things you worry about every day.
But that's the point. I do not worry about them because i know the risks are vanishingly small and just part of lids . And i don't get why other people do worry about them and hence with mass hysteria. Maybe it's the same reason people buy lottery tickets.
Why mention them on here then if you're not worried about them? You brought it up it suggests you are worried about daft things like putting your trousers on each day. "
Fucking hell your twisting things people say more than clcc 
You know full well the probability of being hit by a bus etc compared to being killed in a terrorist attack is massive etc so I don't get why you're trying to make out they are saying something totally different.
I know you've not typed the referendum result & date for a while so is that what's bothering you to distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Scandium said why wud any same parent send there teenage child to a concert wtf do u think she ment by that she's passing the blame from the coward scum with the bomb to the parent "
No, she said:
"
I want some one to explain to me why any sane parent was letting a teenager go to the kind of over and inappropriately sexualized pap churned out by ms Grande. I'm an adult. I'm on a swingers site. I watch porn. I've changed the channel on her videos cause they made me squirm.
"
It is quite clear that her issue was with teenagers going to highly sexualised 'pap'. Now, whether you agree with that statement or not, it is very clear that is nothing to do with the atrocity that happened. You could argue that as a separate topic it didn't need to be brought up now. But either way it clearly is not blaming the victims being their for their demise.
I personally think the comment about sympathy and choice of artist was a bit callous. But it supported the point that in the grranf scheme of life we have bigger issues to deal with than a minuscule probability of being killed in a terrorist attack.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Scandium said why wud any same parent send there teenage child to a concert wtf do u think she ment by that she's passing the blame from the coward scum with the bomb to the parent "
No i wasn't. It was a genuine question as to why anyone would and a criticism of Ms Grande's music. I do not consider that to be any more of a risk than any other concert. This goes back to my point. Risk, fear, blame, are different things. Do I believe sending your kids to a concert is a risk? But a tiny one. Should you let that stop you? No. Are you at fault if something happens? No. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
I personally think the comment about sympathy and choice of artist was a bit callous.
-Matt
It was said tongue in cheek but apparently humour is an inappropriate response."
Alas anything other than Murdock/Dacre incited frothing at the mouth is an inappropriate response to some on here.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
If the cap fits you can wear it.
But it doesn't fit me. Or anyone else on this thread. No-one has said the victims are at fault for being there.
It is just false outrage by someone who can't comprehend the points being made.
-Matt"
The cap does fit you though, it must be yours as it's a size Small. Small head = Small brain so it fits you perfectly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I personally think the comment about sympathy and choice of artist was a bit callous.
-Matt
It was said tongue in cheek but apparently humour is an inappropriate response.
Alas anything other than Murdock/Dacre incited frothing at the mouth is an inappropriate response to some on here.
-Matt"
And also Alas anything other than politically correct, bleeding heart liberal lefty hand wringing is an inappropriate response to some on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And also Alas anything other than politically correct, bleeding heart liberal lefty hand wringing is an inappropriate response to some on here. "
Depends on what you mean by response. If we're talking about people's instinctive 1st reactions to the news then all reactions are appropriate because that reaction is a part of the individual. It's not something you can control. No i don't understand others reactions to these kibds of things, and, it's been a frustration all my life that i don't, but i have no wish to 'reglate' people venting.
However knee jerk responses by governments do worry me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
funny how regardless of the subject it always ends up with the same people adopting the opposite side to certain others...
It is as if some think:
If they support I have to oppose...
I wonder how that could be?
Surely no one could be that stupid? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"funny how regardless of the subject it always ends up with the same people adopting the opposite side to certain others...
It is as if some think:
If they support I have to oppose...
I wonder how that could be?
Surely no one could be that stupid?"
But unfortunately people are !
People need to get out of the rut of seeing everything through the prism of Left and right politics , or whatever political or religious tint their glasses s are!
Its a known fact that there is a lot of colours between black and white , but that is lost on many !
Its easy to label people when you dont understand them or want to shut them up!
If only we could discuss certain issues without descending into arguments and name calling , then we might get somewhere !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
If the cap fits you can wear it.
But it doesn't fit me. Or anyone else on this thread. No-one has said the victims are at fault for being there.
It is just false outrage by someone who can't comprehend the points being made.
-Matt
The cap does fit you though, it must be yours as it's a size Small. Small head = Small brain so it fits you perfectly. "
Phrenology, eh?
Interesting..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The cap does fit you though, it must be yours as it's a size Small. Small head = Small brain so it fits you perfectly. "
Interestingly most studies say brain size, head size and IQ are not related. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Basically there are two posters on here who believe the victims of Monday's attack are at fault for being there, it's life get over it. Unfuckingbelievable
Really? What cunts those two are.
-Matt
Oh wait. No sorry my mistake. I'd temporarily drifted off into your imaginary world.
Back to reality. I don't think I've seen anyone blame the victims on this thread at all.
-Matt
Learn how yo comprehend then. My previous post stands. I'm out of here you and tle dumber sicken me.
I can comprehend just fine thank you. Please point out where anyone on this thread has blamed the victims of the attack and said it is their fault for being there?"
It's written several times by your accomplice in callousness on this and another thread, but I will get just one for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills?
Ahh i see your point. However I also stated that I don't feel unsafe. Risk does not automatically lead to fear. I'm more troubled by the invasion of privacy in airport securuty than I am by any bomb on a plane.
However I will try and make it as clear as i can. Living in a free society means we all take the tiny risk of something like this happening in exchange for the freedom. That is the price we pay. I think its worth it and that risk does nit scare me."
Their fault |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Many seemed to want to lynch me yesterday because my first thought was to the backlash that will harm even more innocents in Manchester and further afield.
More are going to want to lynch me now, but hey, I can deal with any keyboard warrior...
I keep hearing the bomber being described as a coward, let me say that is the one thing he was not! He was willing to and did die for a cause he believed in.
No matter how depraved that cause or his beliefs the one thing that cant be denied is that he had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude to strap a bomb to himself make his way to central Manchester, wait for the opportunity to enter the foyer of the MEN arena and then wait till the time was right to create carnage. (Ask any soldier what it is like prior to battle and how hard it is to keeps your nerve, especially if you think you will not survive. He knew he was going to die!) Those are not the acts of a coward and calling him one only makes others considering doing the same even more determined to show us what it means to die for their beliefs.
Maybe if we really want to stop these outrages we need to stop describing the people who willingly kill and die for their beliefs as cowards and scum, see then for what they are and either engage with them to find a solution (not possible I believe) or destroy them from tip to toe of their organisation.
At present, we refuse to do either so such outrages will continue to occur. "
You don't want to call them cowards. Instead from now on then we should refer to them as Donald Trump pointed out yesterday in his speech at the Nato summit, they will be called loser's. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills?
Ahh i see your point. However I also stated that I don't feel unsafe. Risk does not automatically lead to fear. I'm more troubled by the invasion of privacy in airport securuty than I am by any bomb on a plane.
However I will try and make it as clear as i can. Living in a free society means we all take the tiny risk of something like this happening in exchange for the freedom. That is the price we pay. I think its worth it and that risk does nit scare me.
Their fault "
Sorry, I've re-read that several times and still don't see anything about 'fault'.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
She said she always considers the risks involved in daily life be it a natural disaster, or a tragic accident, etc, that in itself suggests there is an element of fear there to begin with. Do you understand that or do you just lack comprehension skills?
Ahh i see your point. However I also stated that I don't feel unsafe. Risk does not automatically lead to fear. I'm more troubled by the invasion of privacy in airport securuty than I am by any bomb on a plane.
However I will try and make it as clear as i can. Living in a free society means we all take the tiny risk of something like this happening in exchange for the freedom. That is the price we pay. I think its worth it and that risk does nit scare me.
Their fault
Sorry, I've re-read that several times and still don't see anything about 'fault'.
-Matt"
You also need to read the other posts in conjunction with the other threads to paint the picture. But you believe what yoh want in your terrorist sympathiser little mind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Their fault
Risk and fault are different words."
Yes they are. And you have shown what an ugly person you are on every post you have made. I need add no more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"....
You don't want to call them cowards. Instead from now on then we should refer to them as Donald Trump pointed out yesterday in his speech at the Nato summit, they will be called loser's. "
Donald Trump seems to be seeing the light after his recent trip to the Middle East. He is right about the psychological effect of words. Hopefully he will now start to refer to these as Daesh instead of radical Islamic terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxpt OP Man
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"....
You don't want to call them cowards. Instead from now on then we should refer to them as Donald Trump pointed out yesterday in his speech at the Nato summit, they will be called loser's.
Donald Trump seems to be seeing the light after his recent trip to the Middle East. He is right about the psychological effect of words. Hopefully he will now start to refer to these as Daesh instead of radical Islamic terrorists."
mmm... what benefit would that have ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
