House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
bmw535i said:
Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?
Do you know why we form coalitions?
Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?
Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them
Simplistic because people more expert than you or I in this area have stated that the wars had a hand in creating ISIS? And simplistic because some terrorists have stated their reasons for their acts are directly because of deaths caused by us in Muslim countries? You want me to ignore that and believe you?Do you know why we form coalitions?
Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?
Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them
Which bit of the above don't you agree with?
Can you answer my questions?
Disastrous said:
Instead of trying to be smug because you have 'understanding', perhaps suggest how IS should be handled?
So far all we know of your plan is:
Step 1 - internment without trial, indefinitely, for anyone connected to terrorism. We've yet to establish what the nebulous term 'connected to' means, or why this is somehow immune to abuse or mistakes but whatever, lets go with it for now.
Step 2 - is what??
It's pretty clear that step 1 isn't doing much to stop IS so what do you suggest?
You don't need to have served in the military to criticise ill judged military action, by the way...you're not a police offer, are you? Yet, you're fairly happy to wade into them...
1. No, anybody involved in terrorism. Don't misquote me.So far all we know of your plan is:
Step 1 - internment without trial, indefinitely, for anyone connected to terrorism. We've yet to establish what the nebulous term 'connected to' means, or why this is somehow immune to abuse or mistakes but whatever, lets go with it for now.
Step 2 - is what??
It's pretty clear that step 1 isn't doing much to stop IS so what do you suggest?
You don't need to have served in the military to criticise ill judged military action, by the way...you're not a police offer, are you? Yet, you're fairly happy to wade into them...
2. I don't know how to defeat ISIS as I've already said.
3. Step 1 (internment) isn't happening so I'm not sure how you know it isn't working?
4. I have already mentioned the police and the way I wade into them - very often with an alternative method to the ones I'm criticising.
bmw535i said:
tumble dryer]/ said:
My arse.
But since you're so keen on answering questions with other questions, whilst forever remaining humble, may I ask how you think the best way forward in dealing with ISIS, in your humble opinion, might be? (I'm happy to take the smirkiness in your reply as intentional - the meat I'll judge for myself.)
I really don't know how best to defeat ISIS. I dare say far more intelligent and better paid people than you and I have been asking themselves the very same. But since you're so keen on answering questions with other questions, whilst forever remaining humble, may I ask how you think the best way forward in dealing with ISIS, in your humble opinion, might be? (I'm happy to take the smirkiness in your reply as intentional - the meat I'll judge for myself.)
ETA - I think I've answered every question put to me - apart from those which have been presented as an answer to my own questions.
If there are any I've missed, please let me know.
A lot of finger dicking on the keyboard. Come back when you've something positive to contribute other than attacking / deriding others for their opinion(s). (However smarmily you put your point across, and it is smarmily.)
The reality is that where we are today is through succesive governments / armed forces failures. Read that and weep. And don't, FFS, come back with a question - maybe time to ask yourself one or two...
tumble dryer said:
No meat then. Surprise. Not.
A lot of finger dicking on the keyboard. Come back when you've something positive to contribute other than attacking / deriding others for their opinion(s). (However smarmily you put your point across, and it is smarmily.)
The reality is that where we are today is through succesive governments / armed forces failures. Read that and weep. And don't, FFS, come back with a question - maybe time to ask yourself one or two...
I absolutely agree the government and military have made many errors and failures. A lot of finger dicking on the keyboard. Come back when you've something positive to contribute other than attacking / deriding others for their opinion(s). (However smarmily you put your point across, and it is smarmily.)
The reality is that where we are today is through succesive governments / armed forces failures. Read that and weep. And don't, FFS, come back with a question - maybe time to ask yourself one or two...
What questions should I ask myself?
Sorry to ask another question, but what is 'finger dicking'? I've not heard that before.
bmw535i said:
I do agree ISIS was created from the Iraq war.
Can you answer my questions?
If you agree ISIS was created as a result of the Iraq war, do you accept that further military action in the ME is not helpful? Can you answer my questions?
What were your question(s)? How to defeat ISIS?
You should have a read of some of Robert Page's stuff. He's studied every terrorist act between dates that I can't remember now. And concludes that c95% are as a result of invasions and wars fought by the West in the ME.
Alpinestars said:
If you agree ISIS was created as a result of the Iraq war, do you accept that further military action in the ME is not helpful?
What were your question(s)? How to defeat ISIS?
You should have a read of some of Robert Page's stuff. He's studied every terrorist act between dates that I can't remember now. And concludes that c95% are as a result of invasions and wars fought by the West in the ME.
1. That remains to be seen.What were your question(s)? How to defeat ISIS?
You should have a read of some of Robert Page's stuff. He's studied every terrorist act between dates that I can't remember now. And concludes that c95% are as a result of invasions and wars fought by the West in the ME.
2. Here are my questions that you haven't answered - if you can't, just say so instead of asking questions of your own to answer them.
Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?
Do you know why we form coalitions?
Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?
Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them
bmw535i said:
1. That remains to be seen.
2. Here are my questions that you haven't answered - if you can't, just say so instead of asking questions of your own to answer them.
Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?
Do you know why we form coalitions?
Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?
Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them
1. How many more wars, innocent lives both abroad and at home until you can conclude?2. Here are my questions that you haven't answered - if you can't, just say so instead of asking questions of your own to answer them.
Your question reveals a highly simplistic thought process. Do you know why we had to support America in Iraq and before that in Afghanistan?
Do you know why we form coalitions?
Do you think we might have been worried about our own 9/11?
Why did 9/11 happen? It was before the Iraq war and was an 'Islamic terrorist act', as you have called them
2. Two of your questions are easily googled. You can do that as well as I can. They are not asking for my opinion or views. They are not really questions of fact that the average Joe wouldn't be able to offer and answer for. Because they are not necessarily objective, black and white answers. I'll give you my short answers.
1. No. But we didn't HAVE to. Political allegiance comes to mind.
2. Many reasons. Sharing resources, common interests, sharing intelligence, looks better and less of a crusade etc etc.
3. Yes but so what? How many Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK before and after the Iraq war?
4. See OBL's "Letter to America".
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
1. How many more wars, innocent lives both abroad and at home until you can conclude?
2. Two of your questions are easily googled. You can do that as well as I can. They are not asking for my opinion or views. They are not really questions of fact that the average Joe wouldn't be able to offer and answer for. Because they are not necessarily objective, black and white answers. I'll give you my short answers.
1. No. But we didn't HAVE to. Political allegiance comes to mind.
2. Many reasons. Sharing resources, common interests, sharing intelligence, looks better and less of a crusade etc etc.
3. Yes but so what? How many Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK before and after the Iraq war?
4. See OBL's "Letter to America".
I do not know how many more wars , but as I said earlier, we have learnt lessons from Iraq and Libya 2. Two of your questions are easily googled. You can do that as well as I can. They are not asking for my opinion or views. They are not really questions of fact that the average Joe wouldn't be able to offer and answer for. Because they are not necessarily objective, black and white answers. I'll give you my short answers.
1. No. But we didn't HAVE to. Political allegiance comes to mind.
2. Many reasons. Sharing resources, common interests, sharing intelligence, looks better and less of a crusade etc etc.
3. Yes but so what? How many Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK before and after the Iraq war?
4. See OBL's "Letter to America".
1. We did have to.
2. Yes, but the main reason being is because we had to.
America is our most important ally. It would be unimaginable that we could ever conduct our own operation any more without the support of them. In order to have that guaranteed support, we must support them when required. Militarily they don't need us, politically they do. We need them in both areas - definitely militarily.
America spends more on defence than all the rest of the world put together.
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Instead of trying to be smug because you have 'understanding', perhaps suggest how IS should be handled?
So far all we know of your plan is:
Step 1 - internment without trial, indefinitely, for anyone connected to terrorism. We've yet to establish what the nebulous term 'connected to' means, or why this is somehow immune to abuse or mistakes but whatever, lets go with it for now.
Step 2 - is what??
It's pretty clear that step 1 isn't doing much to stop IS so what do you suggest?
You don't need to have served in the military to criticise ill judged military action, by the way...you're not a police offer, are you? Yet, you're fairly happy to wade into them...
1. No, anybody involved in terrorism. Don't misquote me.So far all we know of your plan is:
Step 1 - internment without trial, indefinitely, for anyone connected to terrorism. We've yet to establish what the nebulous term 'connected to' means, or why this is somehow immune to abuse or mistakes but whatever, lets go with it for now.
Step 2 - is what??
It's pretty clear that step 1 isn't doing much to stop IS so what do you suggest?
You don't need to have served in the military to criticise ill judged military action, by the way...you're not a police offer, are you? Yet, you're fairly happy to wade into them...
2. I don't know how to defeat ISIS as I've already said.
3. Step 1 (internment) isn't happening so I'm not sure how you know it isn't working?
4. I have already mentioned the police and the way I wade into them - very often with an alternative method to the ones I'm criticising.
The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
bmw535i said:
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
1. How many more wars, innocent lives both abroad and at home until you can conclude?
2. Two of your questions are easily googled. You can do that as well as I can. They are not asking for my opinion or views. They are not really questions of fact that the average Joe wouldn't be able to offer and answer for. Because they are not necessarily objective, black and white answers. I'll give you my short answers.
1. No. But we didn't HAVE to. Political allegiance comes to mind.
2. Many reasons. Sharing resources, common interests, sharing intelligence, looks better and less of a crusade etc etc.
3. Yes but so what? How many Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK before and after the Iraq war?
4. See OBL's "Letter to America".
I do not know how many more wars , but as I said earlier, we have learnt lessons from Iraq and Libya 2. Two of your questions are easily googled. You can do that as well as I can. They are not asking for my opinion or views. They are not really questions of fact that the average Joe wouldn't be able to offer and answer for. Because they are not necessarily objective, black and white answers. I'll give you my short answers.
1. No. But we didn't HAVE to. Political allegiance comes to mind.
2. Many reasons. Sharing resources, common interests, sharing intelligence, looks better and less of a crusade etc etc.
3. Yes but so what? How many Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK before and after the Iraq war?
4. See OBL's "Letter to America".
1. We did have to.
2. Yes, but the main reason being is because we had to.
America is our most important ally. It would be unimaginable that we could ever conduct our own operation any more without the support of them. In order to have that guaranteed support, we must support them when required. Militarily they don't need us, politically they do. We need them in both areas - definitely militarily.
America spends more on defence than all the rest of the world put together.
True allies are able to accept differences of views and opinions. Weak leadership.
rscott said:
Define "involved in terrorism" . What exactly would someone have to be proven to have done for you to feel it acceptable to lock them up indefinitely?
The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
The line between "Lone Wolf Terrorist" and "violent psychotic episode" is fine, by the looks of it. The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
rscott said:
Define "involved in terrorism" . What exactly would someone have to be proven to have done for you to feel it acceptable to lock them up indefinitely?
The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
I have already covered that. It's not that he has a car and says hello to other terrorists over breakfast in a cafe either. The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
There are several reports which suggest he was connected to the plot to blow up a TA barracks. I guess you didn't read those?
Alpinestars said:
That's so simplistic. We had a choice. We made the choice.
True allies are able to accept differences of views and opinions. Weak leadership.
I think your view is rather simplistic to be fair. It certainly displays your lack of understanding in this area. True allies are able to accept differences of views and opinions. Weak leadership.
Call it weak leadership if you will, but we need America far more than she needs us - certainly in the military sense. Co-dependence is hugely important.
I'm sorry, but you're just talking rubbish.
bmw535i said:
rscott said:
Define "involved in terrorism" . What exactly would someone have to be proven to have done for you to feel it acceptable to lock them up indefinitely?
The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
I have already covered that. It's not that he has a car and says hello to other terrorists over breakfast in a cafe either. The reports today all suggest the Westminster attacker hadn't been radicalised in jail and hadn't actually been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind previously.
There are several reports which suggest he was connected to the plot to blow up a TA barracks. I guess you didn't read those?
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
That's so simplistic. We had a choice. We made the choice.
True allies are able to accept differences of views and opinions. Weak leadership.
I think your view is rather simplistic to be fair. It certainly displays your lack of understanding in this area. True allies are able to accept differences of views and opinions. Weak leadership.
Call it weak leadership if you will, but we need America far more than she needs us - certainly in the military sense. Co-dependence is hugely important.
I'm sorry, but you're just talking rubbish.
In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
rscott said:
I can find several reports which say he lived near some of those involved in that plot and went to the same gym. The reports also say he was investigated and they found no link. So no grounds to lock him up indefinitely then.
Are you going to start talking about rusty cars in a minute? 
Give it a rest.
Alpinestars said:
How patronising. Why did we HAVE to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the U.S. So far you've said it's because they spend the most money on their military - so what? Which infers those that spend less and are their allies, should join in any wars they decide to start.
In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
I have actually said it's because we need them. The extent of their defence spending was an aside just to illustrate their dominance.In your answer, can you detail all other U.S. allies, NATO and EU members who didn't take part in the war and why they had a choice and we didn't.
Are you happy with the price the Iraqi's have paid for our weak leadership and the price we are now paying at the hands of Islamist terrorists? Is it all just collateral damage?
We have a different relationship with America than their other allies. It's just fact.
Of course I'm not happy with the failures in Iraq and elsewhere and the consequences of those failures. We're on the same side mate, I agree with some of the things your saying, but you seem unable to comprehend the bigger picture or accept anything I say.
I doubt there are many people who would say we made a great success of Iraq or Libya or our continued operations in Syria. What is the alternative though?
Just so you're aware, we're currently deployed in about 40 countries around the world - it's a busy time and we need allies for intelligence sharing, mutual support etc etc. Give and take. I know you don't like it, but it's just the way it is.
If we refused to help America, it'd be curtains if we ever needed them in the future.
Alpinestars said:
danllama said:
Alpinestars said:
danllama said:
At this point, I don't think anything could sour relations between Muslims and the West any more than they are already, so I doubt the 200 dead will make much difference politically.
Does that mean you don't care about the 200 dead? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff