Canadian Soldier Shot in Ottawa

[Jimbeaux]

Mini1275 said:

durbster said:

Lovely editorial cartoon in Canada:


http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/201...

Wow, that's very powerful.

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

[Jimbeaux]

bobbylondonuk said:

Either they talk our language, or we talk their language. We hoped they would talk our language for many many years, it's not working. Time to talk their language.

Precisely, just louder and with stronger vocabulary.

[Mojocvh]

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Here we fking go, again, cheap one liner about "gun laws". If it's not fking tanks it's some other distortion to suit some weird agenda that has NOTHING to do with the thread at all.

Tell ya what, go start a thread about the relative merits/demerits of US/Canadian gun laws relative to the general population and those charged with official and public duties. I'm SURE it will be filled with verbose and dull content in moments, none of which will have anything to do with the OP!!

[Mojocvh]

Mini1275 said:

durbster said:

Lovely editorial cartoon in Canada:


http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/201...

Wow, that's very powerful.

Yes it is indeed.

RIP Argyle, you will never be forgotten.

[Jimbeaux]

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Here we fking go, again, cheap one liner about "gun laws". If it's not fking tanks it's some other distortion to suit some weird agenda that has NOTHING to do with the thread at all.

Tell ya what, go start a thread about the relative merits/demerits of US/Canadian gun laws relative to the general population and those charged with official and public duties. I'm SURE it will be filled with verbose and dull content in moments, none of which will have anything to do with the OP!!

Oh calm yourself drama queen! I was speaking directly to a relevant point of the thread. The man was able to defend those people from the terrorist because he was armed, take it however you like. As to tanks and whatever else you were babbling about, that was another poster, take it up with him.

[XJ Flyer]

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

[Jimbeaux]

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

The two soldiers guarding the memorial were good and had guns...they just weren't loaded. It is a known thing, people with badges and unloaded guns make fine targets for those without badges and loaded guns.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 23 October 18:45

[Mojocvh]

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Here we fking go, again, cheap one liner about "gun laws". If it's not fking tanks it's some other distortion to suit some weird agenda that has NOTHING to do with the thread at all.

Tell ya what, go start a thread about the relative merits/demerits of US/Canadian gun laws relative to the general population and those charged with official and public duties. I'm SURE it will be filled with verbose and dull content in moments, none of which will have anything to do with the OP!!

Oh calm yourself drama queen! I was speaking directly to a relevant point of the thread. The man was able to defend those people from the terrorist because he was armed, take it however you like. As to tanks and whatever else you were babbling about, that was another poster, take it up with him.

"speaking directly to a relevant point of the thread"

Thanks for proving the point, AGAIN.

[Jimbeaux]

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Here we fking go, again, cheap one liner about "gun laws". If it's not fking tanks it's some other distortion to suit some weird agenda that has NOTHING to do with the thread at all.

Tell ya what, go start a thread about the relative merits/demerits of US/Canadian gun laws relative to the general population and those charged with official and public duties. I'm SURE it will be filled with verbose and dull content in moments, none of which will have anything to do with the OP!!

Oh calm yourself drama queen! I was speaking directly to a relevant point of the thread. The man was able to defend those people from the terrorist because he was armed, take it however you like. As to tanks and whatever else you were babbling about, that was another poster, take it up with him.

"speaking directly to a relevant point of the thread"

Thanks for proving the point, AGAIN.

I believe discussing the man who killed the Canadian terrorist is relevant to the Canadian terrorist thread, Darling. Stop jumping around waving your arms, you're frightening the people looking in through the plexiglass.

[Muntu]

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Are you suggesting that should a similar incident occur and people have been murdered to further the cause of islam, then the peace loving mohammedan could be talked into putting down his weapon and giving up?

[XJ Flyer]

loose cannon said:

There are lots of chally 2 tanks and a fair few stored away there are also many other vehicles stored away and mothballed for emergences

With production stopped it seems obvious that we're in a situation of a gradual phasing out of our MBT capability.The reality is a ( so far ) 40% cut while it seems obvious that without ongoing production that would also have a knock on effect on future commitment to such a force in terms of replacements of and spares backup for the existing force.

It seems obvious that we're seeing the start of a move away from the idea of the more expensive heavy MBT back to a cheaper light tank force which cost so many lives in WW2.

[Jimbeaux]

Muntu said:

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Are you suggesting that should a similar incident occur and people have been murdered to further the cause of islam, then the peace loving mohammedan could be talked into putting down his weapon and giving up?

I think he means only if said peaceful Mohamed man had a gun. Then again, at the rate Muslims kill one another over disagreement of Mohamed's crappy succession plan, I suppose it's a lost cause.

[XJ Flyer]

Muntu said:

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Are you suggesting that should a similar incident occur and people have been murdered to further the cause of islam, then the peace loving mohammedan could be talked into putting down his weapon and giving up?

No,as I said,the opposite in supporting the US idea that if there is a bad person shooting people with a gun then hopefully there will be a good person there with a better gun to shoot the bad person.

Which I think was the point made concerning Canadian attitudes to gun control v American ones.This example seemed to prove the US point of view.

[XJ Flyer]

Jimbeaux said:

Muntu said:

XJ Flyer said:

Jimbeaux said:

petemurphy said:

slight tear in eye watching their parliament clapping their sergeant in arms

I am glad they let him have a weapon, given their gun laws. He deserves all the appluase they can give him. Had he not shot the idiot, many others in that chamber were about to be killed or wounded.

Proof of the US logic the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

Are you suggesting that should a similar incident occur and people have been murdered to further the cause of islam, then the peace loving mohammedan could be talked into putting down his weapon and giving up?

I think he means only if said peaceful Mohamed man had a gun. Then again, at the rate Muslims kill one another over disagreement of Mohamed's crappy succession plan, I suppose it's a lost cause.

To be fair by the same logic assuming the peace loving Islamist was throwing hand grenades,or what even 'might' be hand grenades,then I wouldn't complain if a few got thrown back in addition to a few well placed shots from a BAR with flattened crossed tip bullets.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 23 October 19:12

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 23 October 19:13

[Muntu]

XJ Flyer said:

No,as I said,the opposite in supporting the US idea that if there is a bad person shooting people with a gun then hopefully there will be a good person there with a better gun to shoot the bad person.

Which I think was the point made concerning Canadian attitudes to gun control v American ones.This example seemed to prove the US point of view.

Ah, ok, my fault for only reading the last few posts in the thread

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

And this is where the West needs a robust strategy.

Every newspaper in the free world should feature a Mo cartoon everyday till the Muslims also start.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

And this is where the West needs a robust strategy.

Every newspaper in the free world should feature a Mo cartoon everyday till the Muslims also start.

Start what, bombimg the newspaper HQs? Beheading editorialists?

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

And this is where the West needs a robust strategy.

Every newspaper in the free world should feature a Mo cartoon everyday till the Muslims also start.

Start what, bombing the newspaper HQs? Beheading editorialists?

Start Mo cartoons. They are bullies - push back and push back big time at every level, they will not retaliate. They have got us scared right now - as your response indicates.

Edited by Mermaid on Thursday 23 October 19:57

[Muntu]

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

And this is where the West needs a robust strategy.

Every newspaper in the free world should feature a Mo cartoon everyday till the Muslims also start.

Start what, bombimg the newspaper HQs? Beheading editorialists?

I think those ships have already sailed

[Jimbeaux]

Muntu said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, pretty deep as cartoons go.

Perhaps we could do one of Mohamed reaching down to help the Jihadist.....oh wait; sorry!

And this is where the West needs a robust strategy.

Every newspaper in the free world should feature a Mo cartoon everyday till the Muslims also start.

Start what, bombimg the newspaper HQs? Beheading editorialists?

I think those ships have already sailed

Yep, I know that, I just had an overwhelming urge to be a smartass at that second in time.