The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Eastfield Lodge]

1) What's to stop people returning illegally? The Question is What's to stop people returning Legally, its a given that illegal immigrants need to go
2) How would policeman having guns have stopped this attack - the guy was a suicide bomber that *Nobody* noticed as entered the MEN Arena? This is one instance where it wouldn't have made a difference, you're right. But the attack on parliament is a good example of why
3) The irony I got bored and never finished the video because I felt like I was wasting my time
4) So how do you plan on punishing the Manchester suicide bomber, or the Westminster terrorist, given that one blew himself into bits and the other was shot and immediately killed by police on the scene? Obviously we can't give capital punishment to a suicide bomber genius! But As I said Lee Rigby and people like that who convert people in prison and are still dangerous and need to be made examples of. Not Lee Rigby, his killers ha
5) So, given that few of your existing suggestions work, what's your next plan?

Whats the point, when I have social justice warrior people like you challenging me on my every point and trying to pretend there is somehow a better way to deal with terrorism?

Questioning the effectiveness of policy is now being an SJW? Who knew.
There is a potential solution, just depends on how SJW you are. Just involves making Hitler look like a hit-and-run murderer.

[Salandriagado]

Not immediately surrendering every principle that we care about at the first hint of danger.

>first hint of danger
>first hint
Were you born yesterday or something?

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

[Torrocca]

Take the hint lad.

So....Youve got a better Idea? Sorry Im thick and I need a big strong handsome smart guy like you to explain it to an idiot like me

Well firstly you can't destroy an idea from without, and especially not by responding to that idea (which feeds off fear) through fear. Any sort of war on terrorism won't work; it never has and it never will. Terrorism can only be destroyed from within.

But regardless of that, terrorism is far less of a threat than most other things. Drunk driving, for instance, racks up more casualties annually than terrorist attacks ever will.

[Salandriagado]

Not immediately surrendering every principle that we care about at the first hint of danger.

Danger!

What the fuck else would you call it?

[Uxupox]

-Encourage Muslim Countries to do MORE! Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt, Turkey. Not only are these countries not taking in refugees,

Nitpick: both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have taken in vastly more refugees than e.g. Britain.

True, Saudi Arabia is using them for slave labour and true, Turkey only does this because it receives HUGE sums of money from the EU to do so - but they do it.

Turkey literally uses them as hostages and they know they can get away with it.

[Torrocca]

Carry on and ignore what is, in the grand scheme of things, less of a threat than household furniture.

He says this as 81 people get blown up or mauled by nails or both.

He's right, you know?

[Salandriagado]

Carry on and ignore what is, in the grand scheme of things, less of a threat than household furniture.

He says this as 81 people get blown up or mauled by nails or both.

And more people than that have died on the roads in the last three weeks. Are you going to advocate banning cars?

[Aelex]

It would be appeal to authority to suggest that Lempkin is automatically correct because he coined the term. This is wrong, and I more or less said so anyway. The CPPCG is a statute of international law under which individual can be charged, so the interpretation it presents in its definition is clearly relevant.

And you don't see how trying to use a piece of 20th century legislative to try and define 13th century events is going to cause problems? I mean, there is viewing history throught one's modern lenses and there is that.

So, a religious domination, deciding they don't like another religious domination, and then launching a campaign called a crusade to kill or convert them, is not genocide.
Uh... huh.

Nobles under the loose aegis of a religious domination that were themselves very clear about the fact that their motivation was land-grabbing committing war-crimes (which was pretty standard behavior for the time, to be fair) while conquering their new land is not genocide, indeed.

I'm sure you'd love to throw out the Holodomor in a discussion about socialism, so that doesn't hold any water as an argument. Creating conditions that cause those things is tantamount to genocide. If you go to war with a minority sect, only kill 1% of them to show the rest that you really don't like them and they should fuck off or convert, that is still genocide, due to the "whole or in part" clause of the CPPCG definition, if it is systematically targeted.
Which this crusade clearly is.

Please don't assume what people would do, or you're going to end up being even more wrong than you usually are. Holodomor was a rather peculiar shit-show and while Stalin certainly didn't tried very much to solve it, he was rather innocent in term of causing it.
Anyway no. Just... No. Casualties caused by war are casualties caused by war. Arguing that they become proof of genocide when the war is called for a particular reason but aren't when it is called for another one is beyond retarded. Soldiers burning the crops or looting cities don't do it because they want every last peasant to die. They do it for strategical reasons and greed respectively.

Or we could reach the alternate conclusion, that genocide was more common in the past and was not seen as an abhorrent thing to do by the standards of the time. Ergo, the standards of the time were shit and awful.
Since we're talking about the middle ages, I think this holds up.

And it results in watering down the term to such an extent that it doesn't mean anything anymore, which is rather stupid and counter-productive, too.

You typed a billion there, not a million, which is surely just a typo, but still.
What death toll do you think is acceptable?

Honestly, I have no idea and neither do historians because the sources are so conflicting with each other. Any number I could give would be more or less pulled out of my ass so I would rather not do that. One million definitely seems far-fetched because the population of France at the time was of around fifteen or so millions, most of them concentrated in the north of country meaning that more or less 1/7 of the population would have died which is very, very unlikely.

[Salandriagado]

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

>negligible threat
I didn't realize this was just "negligible." I guess I should just close my eyes and carry on as people get killed for things that can be easily prevented, good advice. We really should've just ignored 9/11 too huh.

If by "easily prevented" you mean "can't be prevented at all, or at least not without giving up our entire way of life", then yes. For the exact same reason that you ignore that orders of magnitudes more people who die because of alcohol or tobacco every year - both of which are far easier and far less disruptive to avoid.

[Salandriagado]

And more people than that have died on the roads in the last three weeks. Are you going to advocate banning cars?

No, I just don't think it's ok for people who shouldn't even be in the country to run around and rape, murder, and steal because no one wants to say no because it would be "Islamophobic."

But you are OK for literally hundreds of times as many people to die because... you like cigarette tax money?

[The Transylvanian States]

>first hint of danger
>first hint
Were you born yesterday or something?

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

Okay that seriously made me sick! Your saying that 22 is a negligible threat? Are you Serious?! You are disturbed dude

[Ifreann]

What the government in UK NEEDS to do:

-Invoke the Foreign Enlistment Act. For those who do not know this piece of legislation, it is a law made during WW1 for German and Austrian immigrants going to the continent to fight against the British, basically their passports are blocked permanently and they can never return, this of course will not stop homegrown terrorists but in this way we block terrorist 'immigrants' once they leave the country to fight with ISIS.

The Foreign Enlistment Act received Royal Assent in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian War and made it a crime for any British citizen to enlist in the army of any foreign power at war with a state at peace with the UK, the idea being to keep the UK neutral.

-Routinely Arm all police in Britain. The time of the classic British bobby is over I'm afraid to say, we live in a world of destruction, death and islamic extremism. Not the Pleasant and Proper 1900's. Obviously Do Not kit them out like they are ready for world war 3 for god sake, but just an extra piece of equipment on their belt.

It's my understanding that the British police don't want to be armed, so that's obviously a non-starter. And aside from that, what would them being armed accomplish? Another brown man shot for carrying a backpack in public?

-Ban the Burkka. The Burkka is a Symbol, and not a pleasant symbol in recent decades. Ordinarily it would be fine, however if you come to a western country to live and work the very least you can do is attempt to be a part of the culture, and to integrate. Wearing a Burkka to me, is a statement that people do not wish to integrate and want to live exactly the same way as in their original homeland. I think this is an insult. Not only that but it posses a security risk as well for covering ones face

Being able to see someone's face doesn't make you safe. Not being able to see their face doesn't put you in danger. And I dare say that Abedi wasn't wearing a burkha.

-Encourage Muslim Countries to do MORE! Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt, Turkey. Not only are these countries not taking in refugees, not only are they refusing to commit to full military action against ISIS, but they also refuse to publically condemn any act of terror committed against the west. From 9/11 to now. Encourage Them vigorously to Do More to Help!!

Not sure what that'll do to stop Britons blowing things up in Britain.

-Bring Back Capital Punishment. why do you think 56% of the population of the UK want it brought back? Because they are sick of seeing criminals get away with the most heinous crimes and get a number of years imprisonment for it. Bring back Hanging for: Mass Murder, Murder of Children and Police Officers and pre meditated murder. Now no two crimes are the same so I'm not saying AT ALL. Hang all murderers. Because that is petty, shortsighted and makes people think this is about vengeance, it isn't, its about justice. People like the killers of lee Rigby and people like that, need to be made examples of that Britain will no longer tolerate this action against our people.

Capital punishment is banned under the ECHR. Britain would have to repeal the Human Rights Act and pull out of the ECHR in order to restore the death penalty. And for what? Abedi killed himself. You can't execute his remains. It might not be physically possible to hang them. And clearly death isn't a deterrence.

-STOP SAYING BUSINESS AS USUAL!!!! Okay this one is just for me and others who feel like this but I swear when I see newscasters and politicians saying, Britain is United, Just Carry on and things along those line it make me want to smash their faces in, It is an insult to ask the victims to just deal with it. Try telling the mother of the 8 year old that Britain is united. Put a picture of the Union Jack as your profile picture on Facebook for a couple weeks till people get bored of it. Maybe have a pointless candle lighting ceremony. Or how about showing how brave you are by videoing yourself walking through the place where it happened and saying they won't win. Its pathetic, it shows nothing, it proves nothing and does NOTHING! Look I get that you don't want to give the Terrorists too much credit. But to pass it off as next to nothing and its something we can just get through is just quite frankly insulting and infuriating to people like me who want drastic change. So far the UK Government has done nothing except up security, and lots of little tiny short term solutions which are kind of a given really. We need real long term solutions and BIG Solutions at that. We cannot combat Extremism without Extreme Solutions. When you fight a War you don't use water pistols.

And instead of people getting on with their lives as best they can they should...what? Join you in posting online about "Extreme Solutions" that wouldn't actually achieve anything?

Will any of this get done? pfff course it won't

Well they're mostly bad ideas.

---

What the government in UK NEEDS to do:

-Invoke the Foreign Enlistment Act. For those who do not know this piece of legislation, it is a law made during WW1 for German and Austrian immigrants going to the continent to fight against the British, basically their passports are blocked permanently and they can never return, this of course will not stop homegrown terrorists but in this way we block terrorist 'immigrants' once they leave the country to fight with ISIS.

-Routinely Arm all police in Britain. The time of the classic British bobby is over I'm afraid to say, we live in a world of destruction, death and islamic extremism. Not the Pleasant and Proper 1900's. Obviously Do Not kit them out like they are ready for world war 3 for god sake, but just an extra piece of equipment on their belt.

-Ban the Burkka. The Burkka is a Symbol, and not a pleasant symbol in recent decades. Ordinarily it would be fine, however if you come to a western country to live and work the very least you can do is attempt to be a part of the culture, and to integrate. Wearing a Burkka to me, is a statement that people do not wish to integrate and want to live exactly the same way as in their original homeland. I think this is an insult. Not only that but it posses a security risk as well for covering ones face

-Encourage Muslim Countries to do MORE! Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Egypt, Turkey. Not only are these countries not taking in refugees, not only are they refusing to commit to full military action against ISIS, but they also refuse to publically condemn any act of terror committed against the west. From 9/11 to now. Encourage Them vigorously to Do More to Help!!

-Bring Back Capital Punishment. why do you think 56% of the population of the UK want it brought back? Because they are sick of seeing criminals get away with the most heinous crimes and get a number of years imprisonment for it. Bring back Hanging for: Mass Murder, Murder of Children and Police Officers and pre meditated murder. Now no two crimes are the same so I'm not saying AT ALL. Hang all murderers. Because that is petty, shortsighted and makes people think this is about vengeance, it isn't, its about justice. People like the killers of lee Rigby and people like that, need to be made examples of that Britain will no longer tolerate this action against our people.

-STOP SAYING BUSINESS AS USUAL!!!! Okay this one is just for me and others who feel like this but I swear when I see newscasters and politicians saying, Britain is United, Just Carry on and things along those line it make me want to smash their faces in, It is an insult to ask the victims to just deal with it. Try telling the mother of the 8 year old that Britain is united. Put a picture of the Union Jack as your profile picture on Facebook for a couple weeks till people get bored of it. Maybe have a pointless candle lighting ceremony. Or how about showing how brave you are by videoing yourself walking through the place where it happened and saying they won't win. Its pathetic, it shows nothing, it proves nothing and does NOTHING! Look I get that you don't want to give the Terrorists too much credit. But to pass it off as next to nothing and its something we can just get through is just quite frankly insulting and infuriating to people like me who want drastic change. So far the UK Government has done nothing except up security, and lots of little tiny short term solutions which are kind of a given really. We need real long term solutions and BIG Solutions at that. We cannot combat Extremism without Extreme Solutions. When you fight a War you don't use water pistols.

Will any of this get done? pfff course it won't

Is this the UKIP manifesto?

Nah, there's nothing about banning yellow stars.

---

No I am not, and semantics are important. Your own source said that in some months 3000 or more entered. Do you think that is not enough to have terrorist attacks? You sure of that, the US seems to face terrorist attacks and we tend to have a large number of armed people and police. Yeah, and that reason probably has nothing to do with the populace being well armed and more likely has to do with them having targets that will have more of an impact.

Ok? Before the border fence 411,282 entered illegally. Those 3000 are a drop in the ocean if current trends continued and Hungary didn't build the fence more than 3000 would've entered. Had the fence not been built 3000 would've been 100,000 or 90,000.

Britain is an island. What use would a fence be?

[The Transylvanian States]

No, I just don't think it's ok for people who shouldn't even be in the country to run around and rape, murder, and steal because no one wants to say no because it would be "Islamophobic."

But you are OK for literally hundreds of times as many people to die because... you like cigarette tax money?

Dude....You are on drugs

[Torrocca]

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

Okay that seriously made me sick! Your saying that 22 is a negligible threat? Are you Serious?! You are disturbed dude

Out of 7 billion people, more of whom die daily to accidents and drunk driving, yes, twenty two people is negligible.

[Salandriagado]

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

Okay that seriously made me sick! Your saying that 22 is a negligible threat? Are you Serious?! You are disturbed dude

1,810 people died on the roads last year. 25,160 were seriously injured.

[Salandriagado]

If by "easily prevented" you mean "can't be prevented at all, or at least not without giving up our entire way of life", then yes. For the exact same reason that you ignore that orders of magnitudes more people who die because of alcohol or tobacco every year - both of which are far easier and far less disruptive to avoid.

How could this not have been prevented? If we just had extreme vetting and closed the borders, or at least restrict them more, this wouldn't have happened.

Yes it would. Because homegrown terrorism is a thing, internet recruiting is a thing, and we have 8,000 miles of coastline that isn't, and can't be, guarded.

[Frank Zipper]

And more people than that have died on the roads in the last three weeks. Are you going to advocate banning cars?

No, I just don't think it's ok for people who shouldn't even be in the country to run around and rape, murder, and steal because no one wants to say no because it would be "Islamophobic."

How many times do we have to say the bomber was born in the UK?

[Salandriagado]

But you are OK for literally hundreds of times as many people to die because... you like cigarette tax money?

Did I ever say I was? I didn't realize I did, huh. Nice avoidance though.

So you are OK with banning cigarettes? And cars? And alcohol? And fucking beds? Because all of those things are more dangerous than terrorism.

[The Alma Mater]

Are you under the impression that this attitude of "oh my god, there's a negligible threat, quick, give up every principle on which our society is founded" is new?

Okay that seriously made me sick! Your saying that 22 is a negligible threat? Are you Serious?! You are disturbed dude

Over 100 people die every year due to peanut allergies. This would be easily remedied by implementing a full ban on peanuts and peanutbutter.
Should we do that ? It is after all about 5 times as much as 22.

[The Transylvanian States]

Okay that seriously made me sick! Your saying that 22 is a negligible threat? Are you Serious?! You are disturbed dude

Out of 7 billion people, more of whom die daily to accidents and drunk driving, yes, twenty two people is negligible.

Your fucked up dude...We are talking about real people, not statistics that can be analysed and be possibly wrong

[Eastfield Lodge]

Britain is an island. What use would a fence be?

Don't be stupid on purpose. Either shoot the boats or don't let them in Australian style. "Fuck off we're full," etc.

Because banning all immigration definitely won't fuck over the British economy.

[Salandriagado]

So you are OK with banning cigarettes? And cars? And alcohol? And fucking beds? Because all of those things are more dangerous than terrorism.

Never said I did, but again, very good avoidance.

If you do, then frankly your views are not compatible with any kind of reality. If you don't, then you have no basis to support going to ridiculous lengths to prevent something far less dangerous.

[Napkiraly]

Just because some people would still manage to get in illegally does not make the arguments for increased border security no longer valid. It is some seriously warped logic.

Is a cost/benefit question. Currently ISIS is kicking Europes arse economically. Every attack they make costs a few thousand,tops - the security measures implemented as result come at the cost of tens, and sometimes hundreds, of millions plus increased inconvenience and less privacy.

Do we really want to keep travelling that route if it barely helps ?

Building a nail bomb will always be cheaper than implementing the security to prevent said bombings just like how it costs more to have cops stationed to tackle drunk driving than to buy a bottle of Jack Daniel's and get in your vehicle. People aren't particularly fond of being blown up attending a concert just like how they're not particularly fond of getting hit by a drunk driver.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Out of 7 billion people, more of whom die daily to accidents and drunk driving, yes, twenty two people is negligible.

Your fucked up dude...We are talking about real people, not statistics that can be analysed and be possibly wrong

22 people is also a statistic.

Also, you missed this.

1) What's to stop people returning illegally? The Question is What's to stop people returning Legally, its a given that illegal immigrants need to go
2) How would policeman having guns have stopped this attack - the guy was a suicide bomber that *Nobody* noticed as entered the MEN Arena? This is one instance where it wouldn't have made a difference, you're right. But the attack on parliament is a good example of why
3) The irony I got bored and never finished the video because I felt like I was wasting my time
4) So how do you plan on punishing the Manchester suicide bomber, or the Westminster terrorist, given that one blew himself into bits and the other was shot and immediately killed by police on the scene? Obviously we can't give capital punishment to a suicide bomber genius! But As I said Lee Rigby and people like that who convert people in prison and are still dangerous and need to be made examples of. Not Lee Rigby, his killers ha
5) So, given that few of your existing suggestions work, what's your next plan?

Whats the point, when I have social justice warrior people like you challenging me on my every point and trying to pretend there is somehow a better way to deal with terrorism?

Questioning the effectiveness of policy is now being an SJW? Who knew.
There is a potential solution, just depends on how SJW you are. Just involves making Hitler look like a hit-and-run murderer.

[Salandriagado]

Out of 7 billion people, more of whom die daily to accidents and drunk driving, yes, twenty two people is negligible.

Your fucked up dude...We are talking about real people, not statistics that can be analysed and be possibly wrong

So am I. I'm talking about thousands of real people dying, every year. You're talking about 22.