London Bridge Incident

Sharlaw said:
I didn't stand in the road or publicly announce my intention to take part in the silence. I left my desk, found a quite space to myself and spent a moment reflecting on the victims and the loss to their families and the world at large.
This isn't to say I haven't taken time to do so already, but it behoves us to remember those who have passed.

Changing a pic on FB or copying and pasting a status update takes little time, and is more a announcement to the world of your thoughts on the matter at hand.
To take a minutes silence is a personal moment of reflection on what it means to you, and has nothing to do with anyone else.
Click to expand...

This makes sense, thanks.

h4rm0ny said:
Other than trite pedantic differences, not really. The silence you can observe as a personal thing if you wish whereas a Facebook change is inherently a public gesture. But is there any particular reason they should be different? Both ways of showing solidarity, sympathy or respect. I get the impression you have a problem with people changing their Facebook pictures.
Click to expand...

No, not really - I don't see the point personally so I don't do it; quite a few do and if that's how some want to express their solidarity etc in a public way, then fair enough.

I was just wondering if there was a bit of hypocrisy going on with those who quite happily observed the minutes silence but at the same time also berated people for changing their Facebook pictures or advocating anything other than deportation as a way to send a message of solidarity or resilience.
 
ChroniC said:
That's the thoughts of a mad organisation that was allowed to get a grip in an area because it was destablised. It is not the thoughts of all Islam. It wasn't the thoughts of the area before IS came to power either. The fact is that the area was throw into turmoil by a civil war and the meddling of western governments, allowing the maddest most voilent people who have been supplied weapons (probably but I have no proof) from Saudi back doors.
We created that beast and I agree it is necessary to remove it, call that a war if you must but you will not solve the problem quickly or effeciently by adding more and more people to the cause from indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas thought to have IS rebels.
IS rebels are armed civilians, not trained armed forces. Remove the arms and all you have is a ****** off civilian, but that doesn't feed the US coffers though.
Click to expand...

The only way to solve it abroad is killing Islamic jihadists who want to attack us and others, there is no way to appease them or negotiate with them or disarm them other than killing them. If people want to make excuses about foreign policy being to blame or creating terrorists then you have to ask what was the foreign policy of Sweden? The foreign policy of Yazidi women? Islamic State hate us because of who and what we are, if anyone wants to join them due to 'foreign policy' or whatever reason then they are an enemy combatant that should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
 
Above&Beyond said:
The only way to solve it abroad is killing Islamic jihadists who want to attack us and others, there is no way to appease them or negotiate with them or disarm them other than killing them. If people want to make excuses about foreign policy being to blame or creating terrorists then you have to ask what was the foreign policy of Sweden? The foreign policy of Yazidi women? Islamic State hate us because of who and what we are, if anyone wants to join them due to 'foreign policy' or whatever reason then they are an enemy combatant that should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...

Alright Donald. Maybe it is. :rolleyes:
 
ChroniC said:
I'm not trying to dodge anything, if some people in a foreign country want to kill each other then let them have their small war with their untrained soldiers and their rubbish guns. I have a problem when US firms and the US government seeing it as a way to make money and then suddenly it's their problem too and somehow were involved now too. The sale of guns to that area hasn't helped anyone and wasn't necessary.
Then the US go to sort out their mess and far far more innocent people get caught in the crossfire of US bombing targets than would have in a non US fed civil war.

If I was an innocent Syrian civilian watching my country be blown to bits and shot to **** by US guns I would have a greivance with the West too. I don't doubt either than the UK has been arming people either given we sell 3bn worth of arms a year. Most likely to the Saudis who then send it to Syria. We're essentially fueling a fire we're trying to put out and innocent people are being caught up in it.
Click to expand...


Well you are, you're jumping about all over the place.

FIRST they don't want a war now they do but the us shouldn't be there cause that's evil.

Nvm that the US is actually there killing the people killing them.

The Syrian rebels aren't going to be ****** off in the slightest that some government loyal citizens got killed in a mistargeted airstrike are they?
 
ChroniC said:
and their rubbish guns.
Click to expand...

Eh? while there is a weapons black market and external supply and a good mix of older hardware in there a lot of weaponry was taken from regime bases, etc. or brought in from Iraq, etc. much of it is pretty standard AK variants through to high end hardware and somewhere in the mix someone has got their hands on a load of M16 and M4 variants and Belgian assault rifles (not specifically US, etc. sold to the region) possibly a more recent purchase by the Syrian government just before it all kicked off.

EDIT; Regarding the war in Syria - everyone has their fingers in there - Russia, Iran, Turkey many of the Gulf states many of whom are supporting different sides or just being opportunistic as well as Western involvement and that is barely scratching the surface.
 
Last edited:
Reading some of the stories of what happened that night really are inspiring. People rushing to defend others with no thought of their own safety. Completely unarmed or wielding chairs, glasses etc. I honestly wonder if I'd be one of them or one that runs.
 
All else being equal, how would not being in the EU have helped? We still have a border, and this person was allowed through it.
 
robgmun said:
Funny how the BBC news article with this information only mentions this in passing as if they're trying to gloss over the point
Click to expand...
Weird it's been mentioned fairly frequently.

It's not the a bit of information such as where he was living or his name, and unless you plan to close the borders completely after brexit it probably wouldn't have stopped him.
 
robgmun said:
Funny how the BBC news article with this information only mentions this in passing as if they're trying to gloss over the point
Click to expand...

Well considering the vast majority of terrorist attacks on UK soil have been committed by British citizens born in the UK it's a stupid point to bang on about, especially as it will get your usual EDL
knuckle-draggers dribbling more racist nonsense :rolleyes:

UN report finds no evidence migration causes terror attacks and warns anti-refugee laws could worsen risk
A United Nations investigator has warned that moves to crackdown on migration may worsen the risk of more attacks in Europe while breaching refugees’ fundamental rights.
Ben Emmerson, the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, found “little evidence” that Isis and other terror groups use refugee flows or that asylum seekers are prone to radicalisation.
Delivering a report to the UN General Assembly in New York, he said: “While there is no evidence that migration leads to increased terrorist activity, migration policies that are restrictive or that violate human rights may in fact create conditions conducive to terrorism.
Click to expand...
Source
 
Dis86 said:
What you're failing to take in to account is that the infrastructure of France and Holland were heavily damaged, Germany all but destroyed yet...they built functioning governments in very short order and swiftly rose from being ruins to some of the most advanced countries on the planet. They didn't descend in to civil war and chaos yet Iraq did, Libya did. The reason? Islamic factions vying off against one another.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call pointing out the massive differences between pre/post war France Holland and Iraq forgetting anything. The post above does nothing but reinforce the point that the plan of pushing democracy into a loose collection of factions that had only been ruled by iron force was not wise, widely discredited as unlikely to work at the time and against the broader will of the international community and United Nations.

What we will never know is if containment via UN sanctions and aiding the most enlightened faction in the region would have led to Saddams downfall anyway and the emergence of a stable state, what we can say is the approach taken was massively flawed and costly in terms of lives and probably hearts and minds!
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
UN report finds no evidence migration causes terror attacks and warns anti-refugee laws could worsen risk
Click to expand...

Kind of deceptive - just because ISIS isn't to many significant degree utilising refugee flows doesn't mean that Islamic extremism isn't coming in via that source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom