BREAKING: "Firearms incident" outside UK parliament

[mikeymikec]

So quoting his post is ad-hominem? Please.

What? No, calling him obsessive, a sympathizer, and likely to be radicalised are ad hominems to which (two out of three) you've admitted have no basis in reality.

Few have even said that this was terrorism, I believe most have said he was mentally ill, no?

The UK media is referring to it as the "Westminster terror attack" and there have been a string of arrests. That hardly seems like purely a case of pure mental illness.

 

[momeNt]

What? No, calling him obsessive, a sympathizer, and likely to be radicalised are ad hominems to which (two out of three) you've admitted have no basis in reality.



The UK media is referring to it as the "Westminster terror attack" and there have been a string of arrests. That hardly seems like purely a case of pure mental illness.

Fine, I will lower all the red flags surrounding his behavior in this and other threads and will let him continue unabated down whatever path he ends up.

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree. Can you agree that murdering 200 innocent Muslims in a terrorist military strike is indefensible? If the American bomber dropped a bomb in an American shopping mall, would you be upset?

If ISIS controlled that shopping mall, we'd have to talk options.
Your mention escapes any reasoning behind why the strike in Mosul was done. The purpose was not to kill innocent people.

Previous acts of regime change aside, the greatest ongoing threat to human life in the region is ISIS. Combined allied forces are moving in to take them out. The Iraqis are free to tell the United States to leave, but currently we are cooperating in a war against an opponent that actively practices torture and genocide. War has victims on all sides, but do not ever lose track of why that battle is being fought.

 

[justoh]

The UK media is referring to it as the "Westminster terror attack" and there have been a string of arrests. That hardly seems like purely a case of pure mental illness.

Does seem a bit crazy, no? He lived a "bad" life and wanted an easy road to redemption, which he believed could be achieved in such a way, because he was told a lie his whole life. At least he clearly sincerely believed in that stuff, which makes him less immoral than the self-hating regressive apologists of Islam.

 

[Ackmed]

I agree. Can you agree that murdering 200 innocent Muslims in a terrorist military strike is indefensible? If the American bomber dropped a bomb in an American shopping mall, would you be upset?

Yea and in the same week, an American airstrike in Mosul kills 200+ innocent civilians and NOBODY gives a F U C K and it is barely mentioned by that same media. Americans may be unable muster up any moral outrage when our military goes around murdering innocent Muslims in large numbers but PLENTY of Muslims can. Remember that many terrorist attacks have a moral reason underpinning them. In some cases, that moral reason is connected closely to actions taken by Western countries in Middle Eastern countries.

It was not murder, claiming it is does not make it true. You don't know if they were all innocent. Or that is was 200 civilians. It was not a terrorist military strike. Who said nobody gives a fuck? Certainly people do. It was all over the news, online and TV. Simple google will show you that. War has civilian causalities unfortunately. If you read about it, civilians were probably used as human shields, which happens all the time. They use women and children to carry IED's and blow up civilians. People can move or be moved by the time the strike gets there from when its called.

This isn't the first time you're tried this argument, I am a little sad that you still try. Trying to link this attack, to the Mosul airstrike is silly. One intentionally tried to kill innocent civilians, with no threat to the person doing it. The other was trying to take out military targets in a war.

There should be, and I believe that there is every precaution taken to prevent civilians being killed in the war against ISIS. Every innocent civilians death is very sad, and actions should be taken to prevent them as much as possible. As I said, a common tactic is to use civilians as shields, to force them to get hurt. This is part of the terrorism that ISIS is using. The US or other coalition forces do not intentionally try to target civilians. Your attempted comparison is pathetic. Your complete lack of understanding of how things really work in this type of war is very evident. You seem to be going off the deep end lately.

 

[mikeymikec]

Does seem a bit crazy, no?

I think anyone going around killing innocent people en masse is likely to have a screw loose, but based on the available evidence it seems wholly appropriate to classify this as a terror attack. If it had been one unhinged person acting alone then there wouldn't have been a string of arrests.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So quoting his post is ad-hominem? Please.

Few have even said that this was terrorism, I believe most have said he was mentally ill, no?

No.

 

[momeNt]

No.

I must have lost track of the story at some point. I kinda thought that was the popular theory but that must have changed.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I must have lost track of the story at some point. I kinda thought that was the popular theory but that must have changed.

It was never "the popular theory".

 

[bshole]

If ISIS controlled that shopping mall, we'd have to talk options.
Your mention escapes any reasoning behind why the strike in Mosul was done. The purpose was not to kill innocent people.

Previous acts of regime change aside, the greatest ongoing threat to human life in the region is ISIS. Combined allied forces are moving in to take them out. The Iraqis are free to tell the United States to leave, but currently we are cooperating in a war against an opponent that actively practices torture and genocide. War has victims on all sides, but do not ever lose track of why that battle is being fought.

I have no idea why we are fighting. It is my information that all sides practice torture and genocide. We just aren't supposed to talk about it. If the Shia get sufficiently strong, I have strong confidence that the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni ISIS remnants will be on biblical scale.

So America has a mess in Iraq/Syria and is choosing to engage the Yemen tar baby. What American "interest" is served, only God knows. What you can take to the bank is that no matter who you vote for, that person will ALWAYS be foaming at the mouth to drop bombs in the Middle East. The American people apparently support missionless murder.

As a bonus, the country that hates us more than any other country on earth is Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear arms. The hatred of America in Pakistan has skyrocketed in the past 20 years and is a DIRECT result of our activities over there. We have droned people on sovereign Pakistan soil, including innocent civilians. Imagine how America would feel if China started droning people in Texas. You need to realize that just because the victims are Muslim and are Arabic/Asian, they are still humans and have real human emotions like you or I.

Isn't nice that we as Americans can completely ignore what human rights organizations and the UN have to say about our droning program? That we answer to nobody? That we define what is moral and to hell with the rest of the world? Their opinion of no value. Might does indeed make right and America is the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

 

[WelshBloke]

All things considered I'm not happy with our continued presence in the Middle East, but I will never sympathize or ever pretend that an attack on British or American civilians is justified.

It's disturbing that you have to state the nationality of civilians that you find unacceptable to attack!

 

[momeNt]

It's disturbing that you have to state the nationality of civilians that you find unacceptable to attack!

This happened in UK, and he is referring to American bombing in Mosul. So those were simply the places most relevant to the discussion.

 

[WelshBloke]

It was not murder, claiming it is does not make it true.

Deliberately killing civilians seems to cross the bar for what most would class as murder. Yeah there's going to be technicalities in international law that let us get away with it but that really is just hiding behind rules.

You don't know if they were all innocent. Or that is was 200 civilians.

What's the acceptable percentage of civilians to legitimate targets? Is there an absolute number of civilians that it's OK to kill? Is that number the same for both sides?

It was not a terrorist military strike.

It was certainly a military strike that struck terror into people.

Who said nobody gives a fuck? Certainly people do. It was all over the news, online and TV. Simple google will show you that.

How much of a fuck do people give? Enough not to excuse it away and do it again?

War has civilian causalities unfortunately.

Ah! Well that answers that then. Enough to feel a bit sorry about it but not enough to not do it again.

If you read about it, civilians were probably used as human shields, which happens all the time.

So it's OK to shoot into a crowd of civilians if there's a bad guy at the back then? Again, does that work for both sides?

They use women and children to carry IED's and blow up civilians.

Human shields are a different thing to people carrying bombs.

People can move or be moved by the time the strike gets there from when its called.

I bet if we gave a shit about the civilians we could probably spot the target a bit better.

There should be, and I believe that there is every precaution taken to prevent civilians being killed in the war against ISIS. Every innocent civilians death is very sad, and actions should be taken to prevent them as much as possible. As I said, a common tactic is to use civilians as shields, to force them to get hurt. This is part of the terrorism that ISIS is using. The US or other coalition forces do not intentionally try to target civilians.

You don't see the massive contradiction your making there?

We make every effort not to kill civilians but because a bad guy is standing behind the civilians we have no option but to lob something highly explosive into the civilians and hope that it blows the bad guy up as well as the civilians?
Say it like it is. It's easier and more convenient for us to blow up the civilians that are in the way than it is not to blow the bad guy up.

Your attempted comparison is pathetic. Your complete lack of understanding of how things really work in this type of war is very evident. You seem to be going off the deep end lately.

How things really work is that we do horrible things as well, but we justify them in exactly the ways that you are.
Funnily enough there's a guy in a cave somewhere using very similar justifications for his terror attacks.