London

[jeremyrh]

I think Londoners would be still able to enjoy bikinis

As a Londoner, let me reassure you that I still very much enjoy bikinis - at least as much as the weather allows.

[Jonathan Cross]

I have to write that this thread has saddened me.  Much of it seems to be comments about how to have prevented this happening or how to stop it happening in the future, made by people who in most cases are either from USA or GB.  I was in Westminster yesterday and saw the response to the 'incident', though did not see the actual carnage because the area and Parliament was very quickly put into lockdown; nobody was hiding.  The emergency services responded very quickly in great numbers and we have to praise their work in saving life and getting people quickly to hospital, as well as have sympathy for those involved.

Of course, nobody wants tragedies like this and nobody wants them occurring in the future. The USA and GB seem to have different approaches, mostly to do with the level of arms carried by the police.  Neither works as well as it should - the stats prove this.  Comments about the other country's approach smack of the old adage about people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.  Let's stop just criticising, recognise that very determined people will always be difficult to stop, and try to think about tackling the causes.  This was a crime in the eyes of many countries, and we have to try to reduce all crimes of violence.  I am sure there are many people in the States who are concerned about the level of multiple murder there, just as there are in GB. 

The best thing we can do for all those who have been affected by any tragedy like this is to work to understand why people do such acts, and to show that there is another way to live in harmony and understanding without treating violence with violence.

Jonathan

[Rob C]

I have to write that this thread has saddened me.  Much of it seems to be comments about how to have prevented this happening or how to stop it happening in the future, made by people who in most cases are either from USA or GB.  I was in Westminster yesterday and saw the response to the 'incident', though did not see the actual carnage because the area and Parliament was very quickly put into lockdown; nobody was hiding.  The emergency services responded very quickly in great numbers and we have to praise their work in saving life and getting people quickly to hospital, as well as have sympathy for those involved.

Of course, nobody wants tragedies like this and nobody wants them occurring in the future. The USA and GB seem to have different approaches, mostly to do with the level of arms carried by the police.  Neither works as well as it should - the stats prove this.  Comments about the other country's approach smack of the old adage about people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.  Let's stop just criticising, recognise that very determined people will always be difficult to stop, and try to think about tackling the causes.  This was a crime in the eyes of many countries, and we have to try to reduce all crimes of violence.  I am sure there are many people in the States who are concerned about the level of multiple murder there, just as there are in GB. 

The best thing we can do for all those who have been affected by any tragedy like this is to work to understand why people do such acts, and to show that there is another way to live in harmony and understanding without treating violence with violence.

Jonathan

Really?

And how many released offenders end up straight back in prison? How do you communicate with a guy who wants to kill you because his God tells him it's the thing to do?

Considering so many people are so dumb that all they can understand is their own language - violence - why speak to them in what they see as riddles or, at best, something coming from weakness?

You are not dealing with rational humans when you deal with religious terrorism, you are dealing with head cases or even masochists: witness the females that embrace the fundamentalist cause, that condemns them to a life of serfdom, and ask where rationality comes into the equation.

[Robert Roaldi]

Really?

And how many released offenders end up straight back in prison? How do you communicate with a guy who wants to kill you because his God tells him it's the thing to do?

Considering so many people are so dumb that all they can understand is their own language - violence - why speak to them in what they see as riddles or, at best, something coming from weakness?

You are not dealing with rational humans when you deal with religious terrorism, you are dealing with head cases or even masochists: witness the females that embrace the fundamentalist cause, that condemns them to a life of serfdom, and ask where rationality comes into the equation.

Understanding what causes behaviour like this might be useful in determining broad policies that a society can enact. The longitudinal studies from Dunedin New Zealand (Dunedin), about which I learned through an excellent BBC documentary, shows how that might happen and now useful it can be.

You're right in pointing out that all the studies in the world won't help prevent the actions of this one particular wacko in question. And it's turning out that he was not a "terrorist", whatever that word means anymore, but just another screwball. But what else is new? Bad people do all kinds of bad things every day. They decide to drink too much and cause awful traffic accidents that kill and maim innocent people, every day. They go nuts and beat their wives and kids to a pulp. Happens all the time, and I never read about any forum threads about how we should deal with them. So let's keep this in perspective. Public mass killings are the wacko's favourite crime-du-jour at the moment, or seem to be. It's ugly and nasty but it's not even close to being the end of the world as we know it. There are plenty of worse things going on all the time, we just don't dwell on them much, even though the carnage from them is as nasty.

A good question to ask might be why we react this way when we should know better.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Understanding what causes behaviour like this might be useful in determining broad policies that a society can enact. The longitudinal studies from Dunedin New Zealand (Dunedin), about which I learned through an excellent BBC documentary, shows how that might happen and now useful it can be.

You're right in pointing out that all the studies in the world won't help prevent the actions of this one particular wacko in question. And it's turning out that he was not a "terrorist", whatever that word means anymore, but just another screwball. But what else is new? Bad people do all kinds of bad things every day. They decide to drink too much and cause awful traffic accidents that kill and maim innocent people, every day. They go nuts and beat their wives and kids to a pulp. Happens all the time, and I never read about any forum threads about how we should deal with them. So let's keep this in perspective. Public mass killings are the wacko's favourite crime-du-jour at the moment, or seem to be. It's ugly and nasty but it's not even close to being the end of the world as we know it. There are plenty of worse things going on all the time, we just don't dwell on them much, even though the carnage from them is as nasty.

A good question to ask might be why we react this way when we should know better.

Indeed, things like this, and much worse, happens every day in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, sometimes India, Afghanistan, you name it. I don't see those events, where thousands are killed every year, being given the same news time as when similar things happen in the West.

Prevention, and sharing of information, is critical in avoiding these acts; but some will go through the sieves of intelligence. And treating these terrorists as "wackos" is negligence, often they are well educated people that were taken to extremes for several reasons: one of such reasons might well be that foreigners have invaded their country based on lies.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Short of not letting the likely perps in in the first place, and monitoring those already in?

How do you classify the "likely"? Based on: religion, colour of skin, turban around their heads? As someone already said, the guy was born in the UK 52 years ago... how do you monitor him? He had some charges and police record already, should the UK have thrown him out?

[Rob C]

Indeed, things like this, and much worse, happens every day in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, sometimes India, Afghanistan, you name it. I don't see those events, where thousands are killed every year, being1.. given the same news time as when similar things happen in the West.

Prevention, and sharing of information, is critical in avoiding these acts; but some will go through the sieves of intelligence. And treating these terrorists as "wackos" is negligence, often they are well educated people that were taken to extremes for several reasons: 2. . one of such reasons might well be that foreigners have invaded their country based on lies.

1.  Well of course not; broadly, we receive news of more 'western' orientation. That's what regional tv is for: Scotland constantly bitches about not getting the same news coverage as does England; with about ten percent of the population, why would it?

I'm sure local disasters get plenty or air in India, Pakistan et al. or perhaps not: censorship.

2.  Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?

[Robert Roaldi]

Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?

There are 1.2 billion muslims throughout the world. Assigning broad motivations to them based on ISIS rantings is a little like claiming that the KKK in the US represented the worldwide beliefs of Christianity. So ISIS uses a few passages from some book to declare war on non-believers. So what. Pretty much every group of people on earth throughout history have used that excuse. It's how European settlers in North America justified the genocide of native populations.

Would ISIS exist if the west had kept its nose out of middle eastern affairs, or at least not been so ham-handed in its handling of the situation there? There was no ISIS not so long ago. Why is there one now? At first glance, the situation seems like a pretty case study for what NOT to do. If we don't take the time to understand that, in 10 years there will be another group that's even worse than ISIS. In the meantime we're stuck defending ourselves. So I ask you, if we keep what we're doing, do you think you will feel any safer in 10 years time?

But we keep blundering on with knee-jerk reactions to everything because emotion rules the day. We even elect clowns and morons based on emotion. And we are reverting to tribal affiliations for peace of mind. Do you think that will work?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?

[Paulo Bizarro]

1.  Well of course not; broadly, we receive news of more 'western' orientation. That's what regional tv is for: Scotland constantly bitches about not getting the same news coverage as does England; with about ten percent of the population, why would it?

I'm sure local disasters get plenty or air in India, Pakistan et al. or perhaps not: censorship.

2.  Could be true for some, but mainly I'd suggest it's about radical Islamist teachings that non-believes are fair game - no, essential, prescribed targets, in fact. And don't forget: more Islamists are killed by fellow Islamists than anyone else. Go figure. Just like the Christian factions used to behave, then. In fact, it strkes me that the notion of 'country' is becoming less and less valid in Moslem culture, and it's all about faiths. Wasn't that the concept of the new ISIS caliphate? A new empire based not on geographical/political demarcation lines but upon an enforced religious unity?

1. A bomb goes off in Baghdad and kills 50 or 100 local people: gets maybe a footnote on the Western news, and for sure no vigils with candles and such. A few people get killed in a Western city and... I am not being facetious here, but to me, human life is worth the same regardless of where it is lost.

2. Some would argue that Islam, or part of it, is still in the "Middle Ages". Portuguese and Spanish Empires were built largely on religious premises, 500 years ago.

[Paulo Bizarro]

"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?

If you keep doing the same thing, you will get the same result.

[mecrox]

If you keep doing the same thing, you will get the same result.

Exactly. This part of the forum might as well be called Fruitcake Corner, the place where the same handful of wackos ride their mad ideas round and round expecting a different result each time - but the outcome never changes.

[JNB_Rare]

"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?

The seeds for the birth of ISIS in Iraq were first sown by Bush's 'sabre rattling' about WMD. Sensing an American invasion, Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who ran paramilitary camps in Afghanistan, arrived in Iraq in 2002 and started setting up sleeper cells. Then came the occupation of Iraq in 2003, disbanding of the Baath party and the Iraqi Army, destruction of Saddam’s secular state machinery, and its replacement by a predominantly Shiite regime. It was Zarqawi who first spoke about establishing a Caliphate, and who used Sunni anger and hatred of the US/coalition to organize and terrorize. After he was killed, his successors rebranded Al-Qaeda as ISIS.

Yes, Obama mishandled things. But that cannot be entirely laid at his feet. The US public lost its taste for the conflict as WMD did not appear, as abuses to prisoners came to light, and as the ravages of war (such as PTSD) began to manifest. Many Americans felt they had been 'duped' into a war. The 'isolationists' in the US wanted out as much as the anti-war liberals.

Saddam's regime was brutal. And nothing excuses ISIS and its atrocities. But it is instructive to note what could have been done differently, rather than simply assigning blame.

[pegelli]

"Why is there ISIS"... because Obama suffered from a premature ejaculation evacuation?

I think Bush having a premature penetration was the underlying root cause.

[mecrox]

Moderator's Note: This comment was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.
....
My 2 cents,

Don Bryant
 

Truly deranged, but unfortunately this seems to be rapidly becoming the norm across parts of Lula. Is providing a space for people calling for mass murder, indeed offering to do the murdering themselves, really what the founder of this site had in mind? It makes me want to donate my membership fee Medecins Sans Frontiers and walk away.

[jeremyrh]

Truly deranged, but unfortunately this seems to be rapidly becoming the norm across parts of Lula. Is providing a space for people calling for mass murder, indeed offering to do the murdering themselves, really what the founder of this site had in mind? It makes me want to donate my membership fee Medecins Sans Frontiers and walk away.

Amen to that. Let's hope that the site owners step in to restore something approaching sanity. Ranting about conspiracy theories is nutty, but at least harmless - advocating violence is not acceptable.

[Rob C]

I think I see a gigantic tongue-in-cheek become as invisible as the elephants in the tiny toilet.

Or not.

But mecrox, forget the medics without frontiers and just donate the price of entry to me! In a year, it'll be big enough a deal to buy me lunch! Now that should make you feel good again!

Rob C