Possible "Terrorist Incident" in Westminster, 4 killed

[PaNTuXIa]

Do you have any that have been within the last 10 years?

I can't help noticing you've kind of missed the point. Was the reaction to any of these attacks to demand the expulsion of all Irish citizens from the UK?

The vast majority of Irish citizens weren't fundamentally at odds with British culture. I'm pretty sure 99% of them didn't support the IRA, unlike the 99% of Afghanistan that supports Sharia.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

[Fartsniffage]

This guy gets it...

[PaNTuXIa]

This guy gets it...

Bullshit. This attack has everything to do with Islam and its culture.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

*sigh*

Judging from the comments sections of news articles, it is clear that humans have thrown off their façade and allowed their savage beast-like selves to shine through by considering other people as inferior.

Did you see the skulls my grandpappy sent back home from the war with Japan? That facade comes off all the time!

[Great Nepal]

I can't help noticing you've kind of missed the point. Was the reaction to any of these attacks to demand the expulsion of all Irish citizens from the UK?

The vast majority of Irish citizens weren't fundamentally at odds with British culture. I'm pretty sure 99% of them didn't support the IRA, unlike the 99% of Afghanistan that supports Sharia.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This guy gets it...

Bullshit. This attack has everything to do with Islam and its culture.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.
In other news, how's your war profiteering business going Pantuxia?

[PaNTuXIa]

*sigh*

Judging from the comments sections of news articles, it is clear that humans have thrown off their façade and allowed their savage beast-like selves to shine through by considering other people as inferior.

Human beings aren't equal, and cultures certainly aren't equal. Say what you will about Islam, but the current manifestation of it is extremely barbaric and savage.

[PaNTuXIa]

The vast majority of Irish citizens weren't fundamentally at odds with British culture. I'm pretty sure 99% of them didn't support the IRA, unlike the 99% of Afghanistan that supports Sharia.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

Notice how that's relating to support for ISIS, not support for Sharia.

[The Klishi Islands]

I can't help noticing you've kind of missed the point. Was the reaction to any of these attacks to demand the expulsion of all Irish citizens from the UK?

The vast majority of Irish citizens weren't fundamentally at odds with British culture. I'm pretty sure 99% of them didn't support the IRA, unlike the 99% of Afghanistan that supports Sharia.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/

Funny story. So when I was studying Nigeria (this is related, I promise) in AP Comparative Government, we read several different sources on sharia law in Northern Nigeria. All the polls conducted suggested that Nigerian Muslims – along with Malaysians, Indonesians, Saudi Arabians, Iranians, etc, across the Muslim world – were in favor of sharia law.

One of the sources we read, by a guy whose name is escaping me who had studied sharia law in Nigeria for decades, concluded two things:
1) that Muslims around the world, regardless of nationality, are more than likely to give the answer that they think will make them appear to be "faithful Muslims" when asked about these issues
2) that an oft-overlooked (in the West) piece of sharia law is what drives some Muslims' embrace of it: its anti-corruption standards. Especially in poorer countries, like northern Nigeria and Afghanistan, Muslims see sharia as a way to restrict the elites who have been stealing from them for generations. EDIT: Whether this is actually true is a matter of opinion; regardless, that's how they see it.

It also noted that sharia means something different to lots of Muslims, so saying "I want my country's law system to be sharia law," while sounding fairly straightforward to a Western ear, is in reality a very nuanced and complex idea with different meanings, from "I dislike corruption" to "I want Islamic morals to guide my nation" to "I want sharia law for Muslims" to "I want sharia law for everybody."

So I'm generally skeptical of these polls.

[Salandriagado]

Mate, are you even reading the posts you are quoting? You said "Yeah, but that would involve acknowledging flaws with Islam". I am asking you what you are referring to by "that".

---

*shrug* Obviously I don't know you personally, but that's how people in general tend to act and it's a fair bet that you're a person. It's probably less the case with soldiers, obviously, but I dare say that some soldiers do freeze up under fire, or freak out and try to run away. Maybe you would. Maybe not. I certainly don't know if you would or not. Maybe you don't really know either. My point isn't about you specifically, though, just people in general.

We all like to think of ourselves that we'd be the hero. That we'd run into the burning building, that we'd snatch the toddler out of the path of the speeding train, that we'd dropkick the terrorist. But chances are we wouldn't. Most people don't. I mean, that's self-evident. If everyone did it we'd stop thinking it was a big deal.

Unless you expect the lessons to be done in an afternoon then there will be half-trained children with a false belief that the know how to save lives. And I would hardly call an afternoon of lifesaving class "fully trained". Additionally, you cannot expect adults to fully retain first aid training that they received five, ten, twenty years prior.

Maybe you think it should be the case that if something like this happens again all of London should descend upon the scene and start administering first aid, and anyone doing otherwise gets shunned as a coward, but that's just not realistic.

No children running towards a terrorist attack is better than any children doing so, trained or not. Let us not forget the terrorist tactic of setting two bombs, the second meant to kill the people responding to the first.

It should also be noted that the UK tort system isn't exactly kind to first responders.

Nobody has ever been successfully sued for attempting to provide first aid.

Unless you expect the lessons to be done in an afternoon then there will be half-trained children with a false belief that the know how to save lives. And I would hardly call an afternoon of lifesaving class "fully trained".

An hour of training every week, from 9th grade to 12th.

Additionally, you cannot expect adults to fully retain first aid training that they received five, ten, twenty years prior.

They don't need to. Even just little information like how to apply a tourniquet is all that's needed.

Almost nobody can effectively apply a tourniquet, and judge when doing so is appropriate. That includes trained medical staff. That is not "little information", that is stuff that requires intensive continuous ongoing training and large amounts of practical experience.

No children running towards a terrorist attack is better than any children doing so, trained or not. Let us not forget the terrorist tactic of setting two bombs, the second meant to kill the people responding to the first.

Counterterrorism classes every month too.[/quote]

... covering what, exactly? "Don't ever use any of that shit we're teaching you in those first aid classes if there's a terrorist attack"? Because that's the only thing that would fix that problem.

This would rather inherently be a heavily militarised society, set into a kind of siege mentality so severe it feels the need to train its children in counterterrorism procedures and the field treatment of traumatic injuries.

You know the SPARTAN programme of the UNSC in the Halo mythos was a fictional account, yes?

Gotta agree here. Plus, for the fiscal conservatives among us, can you imagine the expense of funding an additional subject in school requiring entirely new personnel (because teachers aren't qualified to teach first aid)?

For what it's worth, maintaining my qualification to teach basic first aid would cost me about £200 / year if I did the bare minimum training, but actually costs upwards of £500 / year. Skimming some school data, it looks like there are about 1.5m school pupils of the relevant ages in state schools, so if we're going for groups of 10 (about the upper limit of effective first aid teaching, and that's pushing it a lot), that's 150,000 teaching hours per week, which, at my rates, comes out to £4.5m/week, or (assuming this is only in term time and we're just hoping that terrorists never attack in August) about £140m/year, just in base pay for that teaching.

Now, I quite agree that we should teach basic first aid in schools. But not an hour every week (those timetables are jammed enough as it is), and certainly not covering shit like tourniquets.

Your point does not stand on first aid. What possible benefit could that have brought in this particular case? Can you point to any lives that would have been saved?

Why are you people so fixed on not teaching first aid in schools?

We aren't. We're opposed to your absurd suggestions that:

a) basic first aid training qualifies you to know when to put a tourniquet on (the answer is "very nearly never", for what it's worth)
b) basic first aid training qualifies you to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack
c) people with basic first aid training and no actual experience will be physically capable of doing anything at all during the aftermath of a terrorist attack
d) people who had basic first aid training years ago (otherwise known as "people who know precisely nothing about first aid") will be of any actual use even if they do manage to avoid freezing and do something.

as an American, i stand with our British allies across the sea. An attack on the UK is an attack on the U.S.

but it is also an attack on western civilization and our common values. I hope that we can work together to help fight the terrorist threat. It would be in the best interest of the U.K. to control their immigration.

Control their immigration? Dude was born in the far-off land of Kent.

To be fair, locking Kent away from the rest of the country and pretending that it doesn't exist is very tempting.

Dude was born and raised in the UK. Immigration controls wouldn't do squat.

I don't recall there being historical populations of muslims in the U.K. before the 20th century. Certainly, controls on immigration origin would have prevented his parents, grandparents or whomever from immigrating in the first place.

You are factually incorrect. Comes of spending several centuries invading other people's countries: you end up with some of them living in your country.

as an American, i stand with our British allies across the sea. An attack on the UK is an attack on the U.S.


Control their immigration? Dude was born in the far-off land of Kent.

That may be so, but he was not English.

Really? So how long do your ancestors have to be in the UK before you count? Am I not English because some of my ancestors arrived in the country (very illegally) and immediately started a fight 951 years ago? Justify your choice of date.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Nobody has ever been successfully sued for attempting to provide first aid.



Almost nobody can effectively apply a tourniquet, and judge when doing so is appropriate. That includes trained medical staff. That is not "little information", that is stuff that requires intensive continuous ongoing training and large amounts of practical experience.


Counterterrorism classes every month too.

... covering what, exactly? "Don't ever use any of that shit we're teaching you in those first aid classes if there's a terrorist attack"? Because that's the only thing that would fix that problem.

Gotta agree here. Plus, for the fiscal conservatives among us, can you imagine the expense of funding an additional subject in school requiring entirely new personnel (because teachers aren't qualified to teach first aid)?

For what it's worth, maintaining my qualification to teach basic first aid would cost me about £200 / year if I did the bare minimum training, but actually costs upwards of £500 / year. Skimming some school data, it looks like there are about 1.5m school pupils of the relevant ages in state schools, so if we're going for groups of 10 (about the upper limit of effective first aid teaching, and that's pushing it a lot), that's 150,000 teaching hours per week, which, at my rates, comes out to £4.5m/week, or (assuming this is only in term time and we're just hoping that terrorists never attack in August) about £140m/year, just in base pay for that teaching.

Now, I quite agree that we should teach basic first aid in schools. But not an hour every week (those timetables are jammed enough as it is), and certainly not covering shit like tourniquets.

Why are you people so fixed on not teaching first aid in schools?

We aren't. We're opposed to your absurd suggestions that:

a) basic first aid training qualifies you to know when to put a tourniquet on (the answer is "very nearly never", for what it's worth)
b) basic first aid training qualifies you to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack
c) people with basic first aid training and no actual experience will be physically capable of doing anything at all during the aftermath of a terrorist attack
d) people who had basic first aid training years ago (otherwise known as "people who know precisely nothing about first aid") will be of any actual use even if they do manage to avoid freezing and do something.

Control their immigration? Dude was born in the far-off land of Kent.

To be fair, locking Kent away from the rest of the country and pretending that it doesn't exist is very tempting.

I don't recall there being historical populations of muslims in the U.K. before the 20th century. Certainly, controls on immigration origin would have prevented his parents, grandparents or whomever from immigrating in the first place.

You are factually incorrect. Comes of spending several centuries invading other people's countries: you end up with some of them living in your country.

That may be so, but he was not English.

Really? So how long do your ancestors have to be in the UK before you count? Am I not English because some of my ancestors arrived in the country (very illegally) and immediately started a fight 951 years ago? Justify your choice of date.

[/quote]
So you're the child of Germanic hordes who conquered noble Britannia from the Romano-British?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

An hour of training every week, from 9th grade to 12th.


They don't need to. Even just little information like how to apply a tourniquet is all that's needed.

Almost nobody can effectively apply a tourniquet, and judge when doing so is appropriate.

Gushing wound on the limb? Tourniquet.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Almost nobody can effectively apply a tourniquet, and judge when doing so is appropriate.

Gushing wound on the limb? Tourniquet.

I mean, you're one person out of 7 billion and you went to boot camp. That doesn't really disprove what he's saying.

[The Klishi Islands]

That may be so, but he was not English.

Really? So how long do your ancestors have to be in the UK before you count? Am I not English because some of my ancestors arrived in the country (very illegally) and immediately started a fight 951 years ago? Justify your choice of date.

I think you messed up the quotes here. I didn't say that; that was a reply to me. I think he's as English as can be.

[Great Nepal]

Notice how that's relating to support for ISIS, not support for Sharia.

And Afgans wanting sharia law for Afghanistan has what to do with terrorist attack in UK?
Not to mention even if that was the topic of discussion, rather obvious educational gap between the countries is quite evident plus rather obvious difficulty in carrying out research for support of a law, opposing which might be seen as blasphemous action warranting various social and legal punishment. More on topic, in UK only 23% of muslims would support implementation of Sharia law instead of secular one and almost half would like to integrate fully with non muslim life including mainstream schooling. So the narrative you're pushing is entirely false and deliberately flawed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Gushing wound on the limb? Tourniquet.

I mean, you're one person out of 7 billion and you went to boot camp. That doesn't really disprove what he's saying.

It's not brain surgery. First aid is pretty basic shit.

[The East Marches II]

Almost nobody can effectively apply a tourniquet, and judge when doing so is appropriate.

Gushing wound on the limb? Tourniquet.

It's a cultural issue, the British aren't fans of stepping up to the plate. They'd rather risk waiting for pros.

[The Klishi Islands]

Notice how that's relating to support for ISIS, not support for Sharia.

And Afgans wanting sharia law for Afghanistan has what to do with terrorist attack in UK?
Not to mention even if that was the topic of discussion, rather obvious educational gap between the countries is quite evident plus rather obvious difficulty in carrying out research for support of a law, opposing which might be seen as blasphemous action warranting various social and legal punishment. More on topic, in UK only 23% of muslims would support implementation of Sharia law instead of secular one and almost half would like to integrate fully with non muslim life including mainstream schooling. So the narrative you're pushing is entirely false and deliberately flawed.

Gotta love a PDF with a name containing the word "Mulims."

I'd like to see the question wording, because it may fall under those points I discussed earlier regarding these surveys.

[Vassenor]

Because apparently understanding that you will likely do more harm than good is a bad thing?

[Vassenor]

And Afgans wanting sharia law for Afghanistan has what to do with terrorist attack in UK?
Not to mention even if that was the topic of discussion, rather obvious educational gap between the countries is quite evident plus rather obvious difficulty in carrying out research for support of a law, opposing which might be seen as blasphemous action warranting various social and legal punishment. More on topic, in UK only 23% of muslims would support implementation of Sharia law instead of secular one and almost half would like to integrate fully with non muslim life including mainstream schooling. So the narrative you're pushing is entirely false and deliberately flawed.

Gotta love a PDF with a name containing the word "Mulims."

I'd like to see the question wording, because it may fall under those points I discussed earlier regarding these surveys.

I mean even the results say "in their country" which kind of makes it not relevant for the whole OMG THEY WANT GLOBAL SHARIA idea.

[Fartsniffage]

Nobody has ever been successfully sued for attempting to provide first aid.

My uncle was sued in New York for breaking a guys ribs while performing the Heimlich on a guy in a restaurant. Judge thought it was hilarious.

[The Klishi Islands]

Nobody has ever been successfully sued for attempting to provide first aid.

My uncle was sued in New York for breaking a guys ribs while performing the Heimlich on a guy in a restaurant. Judge thought it was hilarious.

Please tell me your uncle won.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Gushing wound on the limb? Tourniquet.

It's a cultural issue, the British aren't fans of stepping up to the plate. They'd rather risk waiting for pros.

That explains the World Wars.

[The East Marches II]

Because apparently understanding that you will likely do more harm than good is a bad thing?

TIL a trained populace like Pret mentioned wouldn't know what to do

If you do know what to do, it's generally good to step up. Thankfully we didn't pick up that bad habit from you lot.

[Great Nepal]

And Afgans wanting sharia law for Afghanistan has what to do with terrorist attack in UK?
Not to mention even if that was the topic of discussion, rather obvious educational gap between the countries is quite evident plus rather obvious difficulty in carrying out research for support of a law, opposing which might be seen as blasphemous action warranting various social and legal punishment. More on topic, in UK only 23% of muslims would support implementation of Sharia law instead of secular one and almost half would like to integrate fully with non muslim life including mainstream schooling. So the narrative you're pushing is entirely false and deliberately flawed.

Gotta love a PDF with a name containing the word "Mulims."

I'd like to see the question wording, because it may fall under those points I discussed earlier regarding these surveys.

Seems more like polling document created for channel 4 and then distributed based on whatever name it was (like an appendix) since it just has question/percentage answers. The question for Sharia law was: "to what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain in which Sharia law is introduced instead of British law?" with four options - just for those in UK though so while first issue might apply I'm not really sure on the second one.