Suspected terrorist attack in London 4 dead including the attacker

[Argus]

40 minutes ago, hot enough said:

If Saudi Arabia were given military bases on Canadian soil, how would you react?

If we needed a foreign power to have a base in Canada to protect us from invasion from a hostile neighbor I sure as hell wouldn't try to kill them.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It has more to do with this topic than yours, two above this one of yours.

Mine is specifically on topic. Yours seems to just be part of your overall ideological agenda of blaming all things in the world on the evil West.

The only place on Earth which has a consistent respect for human rights and democratic values.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

All extremely interesting, Rue. And nuts. Why would they order it from longest to shortest rather than in chronological order? It would make a heck of a lot more sense that way.  Your explanation of abrogation also explains a number of contradictory quotations so I thank you. You've obviously spent a good deal of time on this. Is it part of your work or just a scholar's interest in another religion?

Its cuz I get on your nerves on some posts so on others I try show you aint crazy about such things its the subject matter that's crazy. Lol.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The only place on Earth which has a consistent respect for human rights and democratic values.

Odd comment considering the tens of millions, the more than 70 illegal invasions by the grand bastion of all these humanity and democracy, the US of A. 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If we needed a foreign power to have a base in Canada to protect us from invasion from a hostile neighbor I sure as hell wouldn't try to kill them.

You have once more evaded the question. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Odd comment considering the tens of millions, the more than 70 illegal invasions by the grand bastion of all these humanity and democracy, the US of A. 

 

Not odd at all....more emigres have invaded the United States legally and illegally than any other nation on earth....about 20% of all immigrants in the world.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

We can take a look back over the last 15 years and see what caused much of the turmoil in the M.E.  Several invasions taking out leaders deemed unfit to lead while saying they are a threat to global peace.  Why are things getting worse? Is it because those Muslims can't get their shit together after their nations were bombed back to the stone age? Due to the reasons mentioned before?

But here we have a UK citizen born and raised.

He was "inspired". The ISIS have a media campaign to attract people to their "cause". It's another aspect to the problem.

-> Why are things getting worse?

Not even sure if they really are. Terrorism has been around for a long time. In this recent case 4 people were killed. Sure, it's a tragedy. But certainly the media coverage when these things occur is extensive. It's not helping.

[-TSS-]

Doesn't anyone think that this London-attack has been a bit blown out of proportion? I'm not saying that there were "only" four victims but I'm saying that almost anywhere else this would have barely made the news but as London is some sort of a centre of the world anything that happens there gets multiple attention.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Doesn't anyone think that this London-attack has been a bit blown out of proportion? I'm not saying that there were "only" four victims but I'm saying that almost anywhere else this would have barely made the news but as London is some sort of a centre of the world anything that happens there gets multiple attention.

 

Because they're betting the future on it NEVER happening.

[OftenWrong]

17 hours ago, marcus said:

Going into Iraq, destroying Libya and a number of other West's actions have created the perfect vacuum which has created the opposite of stopping the spreading of these fundamentalists, who gain more and more power with every action we take in the Middle East. 

I am spoon feeding you with information and facts about our actions and trying to help you understand cause and effect. Yet, all you are able to do is respond with superficial slogans. 

At least blink before you repeat the same baseless comments.

Wow, that's not very friendly. Are you attacking the poster now? Yes. Sorry if I don't echo your every concern.

Iraq and Afghanistan pullout was overseen by President Obama, so blame him for the vacuum. Blame him for Syria too, and the rise of ISIS.
Libya? Obama.

If these things were handled by people with experience and forethought, instead of naive peace-at-any-cost ideology, the situation would now be different.

[OftenWrong]

15 hours ago, kactus said:

Ever noticed that most of these killings of arabs by eachother is done in the very same countries where the west has been involved in it way or another?

Arabs killing each other is not actually their fault... 

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

Absolutely no different than the "religious" schools built all over western nations. You attended one yourself.

That is absolutely false.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Iraq and Afghanistan pullout was overseen by President Obama, so blame him for the vacuum. Blame him for Syria too, and the rise of ISIS.
Libya? Obama.

Is there absolutely no standard at this website? Why don't individuals hold themselves to any standard. The alternate facts are running rampant. 

Quote

Aggression, in the Tribunal’s judgment, was identified as “the supreme international crime,” differing from others only in that it encompasses all of the evil that follows. So with Iraq, the supreme crime of aggression encompasses the savage destruction of Fallujah, sectarian violence, death squads, the desperate flight of 2 million people, displacement of 2 million others and the rest of the horrors of the past few years that are too familiar to review, with the aggressors absolved from blame except in marginal respects, in keeping with the conventional refusal to sip from the poisoned chalice.

There was no ambiguity in the definition of the “supreme international crime.” In Justice Jackson’s opening statement to the Tribunal, he defined an aggressor as “a state that is the first to commit such actions, as invasion of its armed forces with or without a declaration of war of the territory of another state.” Very clear.

http://fair.org/extra/the-poisoned-chalice/

 

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That is absolutely false.

It's absolutely true. The propaganda that US, Canadian, Brit, ... kids receive is identical to that taught in madrasses. How did you get to your old age without learning of the genocides committed by the US and Canada?

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Is there absolutely no standard at this website? Why don't individuals hold themselves to any standard. The alternate facts are running rampant. 

 

Try to stick to the conversation at hand. Your posts are all over the place. You conflate everything with everything else.

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Try to stick to the conversation at hand. Your posts are all over the place. You conflate everything with everything else.

That was exactly on point, your point. Bush, Cheney et al were the original war criminals, Obama just a secondary war criminal. The crimes were egregious enough that they would all be hung, if Nuremberg standards were followed. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, hot enough said:

It's absolutely true. The propaganda that US, Canadian, Brit, ... kids receive is identical to that taught in madrasses. How did you get to your old age without learning of the genocides committed by the US and Canada?

Not sure where you went to school, but it's false. Stick to the discussion, not move the goal posts, otherwise the discussion becomes just a childish argument.

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Not sure where you went to school, but it's false. Stick to the discussion, not move the goal posts, otherwise the discussion becomes just a childish argument.

You don't address the issues raised. You flee wildly. That is really childish. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, hot enough said:

That was exactly on point, your point. Bush, Cheney et al were the original war criminals, Obama just a secondary war criminal. The crimes were egregious enough that they would all be hung, if Nuremberg standards were followed. 

We were discussing how those countries were abandoned after the war so that the extremists could move in and take over. Stick to the discussion, hot enough.

[marcus]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Wow, that's not very friendly. Are you attacking the poster now? Yes. Sorry if I don't echo your every concern.

Iraq and Afghanistan pullout was overseen by President Obama, so blame him for the vacuum. Blame him for Syria too, and the rise of ISIS.
Libya? Obama.

If these things were handled by people with experience and forethought, instead of naive peace-at-any-cost ideology, the situation would now be different.

Are you one of those fanboys who picks a team and then only sees the wrong doings on the other side?

Both administrations screwed up. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq and created the mess, which created a perfect setting for ISIS to be formed. Obama didn't make things any better with how he handled Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria afterwards.

Conclusion: West's foreign policy is the main reason these extremist idiots were able to find a cause together and flourish.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

We were discussing how those countries were abandoned after the war

And you were wrong in that too. It wasn't a war. It was an illegal invasion as described by international law. as described in the link I provided, that you totally ignored, leading me, and I'm sure others to wonder how an adult can be so blind to facts put squarely in front of his face. 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, marcus said:

Are you one of those fanboys who picks a team and then only sees the wrong doings on the other side?

Both administrations screwed up. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq and created the mess, which created a perfect setting for ISIS to be formed. Obama didn't make things any better with how he handled Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria afterwards.

Conclusion: West's foreign policy is the main reason these extremist idiots were able to find a cause together and flourish.

Please avoid ad hominem.
After 9/11, Bush's hand was pretty much forced. Something had to be done to prevent more attacks and ensure US supremacy. It's easy for us to criticize things from a distance, after the fact.

There are several reasons why these extremist idiots were able to find a cause and flourish. Many mistakes were made. Politics is another factor that's easily overlooked- as when political opponents block one another's efforts, despite the importance to achieving success. Another big problem is the internet is used as platform to catapult the propaganda. This is a very new phenomenon and plays a big role in radicalization, even in places where there is no direct connection.

You brought up the power vacuum that's being filled by ISIS. My point is if the west wants to implement "regime change" the end game needs to be done properly. One cannot win in war by half-measures.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Please avoid ad hominem.
After 9/11, Bush's hand was pretty much forced. Something had to be done to prevent more attacks and ensure US supremacy. It's easy for us to criticize things from a distance, after the fact.

There are several reasons why these extremist idiots were able to find a cause and flourish. Many mistakes were made. Politics is another factor that's easily overlooked- as when political opponents block one another's efforts, despite the importance to achieving success. Another big problem is the internet is used as platform to catapult the propaganda. This is a very new phenomenon and plays a big role in radicalization, even in places where there is no direct connection.

You brought up the power vacuum that's being filled by ISIS. My point is if the west wants to implement "regime change" the end game needs to be done properly. One cannot win in war by half-measures.

Agreed, but they had to be extremists in the first place.  You don't blow up a market full of Shiites because of what the US is doing.  That might have freed you up a bit to do it, but the will has to be there.  There is a case to be made for a vicious dictatorship.  It kills people, but it keeps people from killing people. 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Not even sure if they really are

There were fewer deaths from Islamic terrorism in 2016 than in 2015.  

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

There were fewer deaths from Islamic terrorism in 2016 than in 2015.  

Well that's good news.  Did they postulate as to a reason?