Another attack in Europe, London this time.

[Mark1T]

Another angle to focus on, among others: ISIS is losing its physical "caliphate." As a result, it is increasing its virtual caliphate by spreading its ideology via the internet, encouraging their brain-dead-dumb-ass followers, who are out of work and feel disenfranchised and whom are so simple-minded, they attack in various forms. Boosting anti-ISIS ideology online and placing spies on mosques, may help.

France and UK special ops teams are both in Iraq, Syris and other countries searching for people who left their countries to fight with ISIS. Their purpose? To kill them, to prevent them from coming back. No arrests. Kill.

[mejulian]

My brother lives in London and frequents one of the restaurants near Borough Market. He and the wife had just left a bar in the London Bridge area when the cops blocked people from passing. No one thought much of it, but then they heard the gunshots and people were told to run for their lives. They made it to the tube, where they were detained with a machine gun to their faces while the police cleared the station. Horrible.

But hey, the world is more concerned about the stupid tweets of the US President. As always, no government will do anything to avoid looking racist, intolerant or whatever. The topic cannot even be discussed. On to the next one and diversity is our strength.

[startingat56]

lo
I could kill many more folks with a car than any gun. It's just a matter of finding the right location. CCW would have stopped them much sooner.

Of course the problem is actually Islam and not the weapon. There are plenty of weapons and if you focus on one they just use another. Time to focus on Islam.

Focus on Islam?

America has a far worse problem with gangs, than they do with Islam, and no one seems to give a ship.

In Chicago, Yvonne Nelson was walking out of Starbucks and was killed by a bullet meant for a gang member. A 15 year old targeted a rival gang member, and Nelson was killed. One of countless stories, the sum of which means gangs are probably the most significant problem in the U.S. Of course you can't rat out anyone .... that's wrong. A pigeon, a stoolie .... F!ck the cops .... I'm skeered of retaliation. I'll just suffer through the same fears I have of the terrorists, when caused by homegrowns ..... cause they are not swarthy men mandated to come to the western world and cut off our heads according to their religion

The root problem is what constitutes freedom. Absolute freedom cannot work in any society, so there has to be lines drawn. You will never get a society to agree on those lines.

Religion is belief
Belief is powerful

In order to believe something, you cannot accept something else (you could be tolerant, but you can't accept it)

Multiculturalism is next to impossible to impose. It can occur over long periods of time, but it cannot be imposed. It needs to fade away over generations

remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnTZipv03M

[Flounderbout]

Another angle to focus on, among others: ISIS is losing its physical "caliphate." As a result, it is increasing its virtual caliphate by spreading its ideology via the internet, encouraging their brain-dead-dumb-ass followers, who are out of work and feel disenfranchised and whom are so simple-minded, they attack in various forms. Boosting anti-ISIS ideology online and placing spies on mosques, may help.

France and UK special ops teams are both in Iraq, Syris and other countries searching for people who left their countries to fight with ISIS. Their purpose? To kill them, to prevent them from coming back. No arrests. Kill.

I don't honestly see how anyone can object to people heading to Syria to fight a war being shot and killed by special forces or anyone else. You want to fight a Holy War? Here, have a bullet.

The internet is poisonous. You only need to look in here at people who have plenty in common and would sit and have a beer together fighting about politics. It wouldn't happen in a bar. Well not in the same way anyway.

The internet is breeding a whole army of ISIS morons, alt-right morons, far left morons. All sad little people who are made to feel part of some special movement.

[Mark1T]

I don't honestly see how anyone can object to people heading to Syria to fight a war being shot and killed by special forces or anyone else. You want to fight a Holy War? Here, have a bullet.

The internet is poisonous. You only need to look in here at people who have plenty in common and would sit and have a beer together fighting about politics. It wouldn't happen in a bar. Well not in the same way anyway.

The internet is breeding a whole army of ISIS morons, alt-right morons, far left morons. All sad little people who are made to feel part of some special movement.

Agreed on all that.

[Karl_Hungus]

I personally don't think we would have the gun issues that the US has, because we do not have the fetishised view of guns that people seem to over there.

You claim that you dislike vacuous soundbites, yet that is essentially what you are doing here -- Taking a complicated issue with many variables and boiling it down to condescending insult -- e.g. simplistic Americans "fetishizing" guns.

[Flounderbout]

Agreed on all that.

This is very alarming. I am not sure what happens now...

[startingat56]

Agreed on all that.

controls on the internet?

freedom of speech?

who will give up what?

The thing that scares people about terrorists, especially plowing people down with vehicles, is that it's not preventable. It's the sense of helplessness. Sure open carry laws can have the "good guy" stop the "bad guy" .... but not until the "bad guy" already did something bad.

revenge is a poor substitute for prevention

The egg cannot be unscrambled

The internet is here to stay, and any attempt to police it will be met with protest. Very few would accept the loss of privacy. Like the bait fish in the ocean, it's likely the predator fish will eat my buddies, and not me. I'll take my chances ... I cannot survive without social media.

[Brackneyc]

Focus on Islam?

America has a far worse problem with gangs, than they do with Islam, and no one seems to give a ship.

In Chicago, Yvonne Nelson was walking out of Starbucks and was killed by a bullet meant for a gang member. A 15 year old targeted a rival gang member, and Nelson was killed. One of countless stories, the sum of which means gangs are probably the most significant problem in the U.S. Of course you can't rat out anyone .... that's wrong. A pigeon, a stoolie .... F!ck the cops .... I'm skeered of retaliation. I'll just suffer through the same fears I have of the terrorists, when caused by homegrowns ..... cause they are not swarthy men mandated to come to the western world and cut off our heads according to their religion

The root problem is what constitutes freedom. Absolute freedom cannot work in any society, so there has to be lines drawn. You will never get a society to agree on those lines.

Religion is belief
Belief is powerful

In order to believe something, you cannot accept something else (you could be tolerant, but you can't accept it)

Multiculturalism is next to impossible to impose. It can occur over long periods of time, but it cannot be imposed. It needs to fade away over generations

remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnTZipv03M

My guess is that if you could identify a person in a gang who killed someone, and the gang could identify you, you'd quickly forget exactly what you saw.

You can say you'd stand up to it, but I doubt you would. Most wouldn't.

[Flounderbout]

You claim that you dislike vacuous soundbites, yet that is essentially what you are doing here -- Taking a complicated issue with many variables and boiling it down to condescending insult -- e.g. simplistic Americans "fetishizing" guns.

It wasn't meant to be an insult. People in the UK don't understand the US relationship with guns and their link with the constitution/rights. In the UK a gun is a gun - in the US it is a whole embodiment of fundamental freedoms etc etc. I was trying to put that complicated relationship in a short hand way - I wasn't trying to be pejorative with the term fetishizing - bad choice of words maybe. Not sure where you got that I was suggesting Americans are simplistic.

[Mark1T]

This is very alarming. I am not sure what happens now...

I'm freaking out, too

[Mark1T]

controls on the internet?

freedom of speech?

who will give up what?

The thing that scares people about terrorists, especially plowing people down with vehicles, is that it's not preventable. It's the sense of helplessness. Sure open carry laws can have the "good guy" stop the "bad guy" .... but not until the "bad guy" already did something bad.

revenge is a poor substitute for prevention

The egg cannot be unscrambled

The internet is here to stay, and any attempt to police it will be met with protest. Very few would accept the loss of privacy. Like the bait fish in the ocean, it's likely the predator fish will eat my buddies, and not me. I'll take my chances ... I cannot survive without social media.

Revenge? How did you come up with that?

[DuracellBunny]

The internet is here to stay, and any attempt to police it will be met with protest. Very few would accept the loss of privacy.

The people that post who they slept with and pictures of their lunch, along with every other aspect of their mundane existence, are worried about loss of privacy?

[Karl_Hungus]

It wasn't meant to be an insult. People in the UK don't understand the US relationship with guns and their link with the constitution/rights. In the UK a gun is a gun - in the US it is a whole embodiment of fundamental freedoms etc etc. I was trying to put that complicated relationship in a short hand way - I wasn't trying to be pejorative with the term fetishizing - bad choice of words maybe. Not sure where you got that I was suggesting Americans are simplistic.

I interpreted "fetishizing" to mean that you believed Americans were irrationally/stupidly attached to guns for their own sake -- in the absence of any kind of intellectual/historical context. It looks like I may have misread your intent -- I agree with what you wrote above.

[Brackneyc]

The internet is here to stay, and any attempt to police it will be met with protest. Very few would accept the loss of privacy. Like the bait fish in the ocean, it's likely the predator fish will eat my buddies, and not me. I'll take my chances ... I cannot survive without social media.

Guns too.

[Flounderbout]

I interpreted "fetishizing" to mean that you believed Americans were irrationally/stupidly attached to guns for their own sake -- in the absence of any kind of intellectual/historical context. It looks like I may have misread your intent -- I agree with what you wrote above.

"Fetishising" does suggest irrationality. Just a clumsy choice of words on my part. Apologies.

I would never intentionally insult Americans, not least because you are all irrational, simplistic, and armed to the phucking teeth.*

*to the simplistic* Americans, this was a joke.

*so was this.

[Corbi]

2) What are the rules on concealed carry and alcohol? Precisely because alcohol and guns is a bad combination, there are rather strict rules pertaining to it. People who were drinking would not have been armed.

I have my permit & I carry loaded firearms in my vehicles but never on myself, I just have never felt so deathly afraid of anyplace or anyone that I would even want to carry. Regarding the alcohol bit, I can be in bars but cannot be drinking, even 1 beer is enough for them to pull your license.

[Corbi]

There was a mass shooting in Orlando this morning, it seems to be workplace violence. That stuff just doesn't happen here. I may well be missing some, but I can only think of one UK school shooting during my lifetime.

How much vacation time does the government there require you to have/take if any at all?

Workplace violence is off the charts here in areas, some of it is due to crummy working conditions, poor pay, lousy vacation and health benefits, etc. Bust your ass & still never get ahead and some people just can't take the stress and explode. I don't understand why so many opt for a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

[Mark1T]

What's the deal with Theresa May and police cuts? Will it affect morale, make UK less safe?

What is the justification or end game?

[thomashenry]

[QUOTE=DuracellBunny;1507305431]1) These guys were attacking people in bars and restaurants. That number of people in that small a space would have resulted in an insane number of casualties with firearms.

2) What are the rules on concealed carry and alcohol? Precisely because alcohol and guns is a bad combination, there are rather strict rules pertaining to it. People who were drinking would not have been armed.

3) So, with guns being available but victims being drinkers, you now have terrorists who are armed with victims who aren't.

Result: far more dead people.



QUOTE] Alcohol........... http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...0961--,00.html

Gun Free Zones...http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...0947--,00.html

[DuracellBunny]

I have my permit & I carry loaded firearms in my vehicles but never on myself, I just have never felt so deathly afraid of anyplace or anyone that I would even want to carry. Regarding the alcohol bit, I can be in bars but cannot be drinking, even 1 beer is enough for them to pull your license.

You and I have discussed carrying and drinking before, which is what I based my comment on. The incident happened on a Saturday night in an area full of bars and restaurants. The guys actually attacked people inside them and had people throwing beer bottles etc at them. Even if guns were commonplace, people wouldn't have been carrying because they were out drinking. On the flip side of that, if the terrorists had guns, they could have just sprayed bullets through a window into a crowded bar and it would have been complete carnage.

How much vacation time does the government there require you to have/take if any at all?

Workplace violence is off the charts here in areas, some of it is due to crummy working conditions, poor pay, lousy vacation and health benefits, etc. Bust your ass & still never get ahead and some people just can't take the stress and explode. I don't understand why so many opt for a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

That is pertinent to one of my other points. If a guy wakes up in the morning, cannot face the idea of going in to work and just wants to kill all of his colleagues; if he doesn't have a gun lying around, he is more likely to calm down before he is in a position to kill anybody. I don't believe US citizens are inherently that much more homicidal than UK citizens; the disparity in homicide rates is largely down to the easier access to lethal force.

[DuracellBunny]

What's the deal with Theresa May and police cuts? Will it affect morale, make UK less safe?

What is the justification or end game?

Most of what you hear is politics. As the nature and number of committed crime changes, the numbers and types of police needed change. Most of the people you hear using it as something to bash May with are either her political opponents or senior members of the police officers union, who are hardly impartial.

In 2010 when the conservatives took office, the deficit was >£150B and it is now <£50B. Cuts were made in all sorts of places and there have definitely been some effects from that, but they are not as large as the media makes them out to be.

I do know that resource management within the police follows some odd priorities. When the Jimmy Saville scandal hit the media, the police put more officers into investigating him (even though he was already dead and couldn't be prosecuted) than the number investigating every murder in the UK put together. On what planet does that sound like a reasonable use of resources?

[Brackneyc]

Most of what you hear is politics. As the nature and number of committed crime changes, the numbers and types of police needed change. Most of the people you hear using it as something to bash May with are either her political opponents or senior members of the police officers union, who are hardly impartial.

In 2010 when the conservatives took office, the deficit was >£150B and it is now <£50B. Cuts were made in all sorts of places and there have definitely been some effects from that, but they are not as large as the media makes them out to be.

I do know that resource management within the police follows some odd priorities. When the Jimmy Saville scandal hit the media, the police put more officers into investigating him (even though he was already dead and couldn't be prosecuted) than the number investigating every murder in the UK put together. On what planet does that sound like a reasonable use of resources?

On planet United States. We do stuff like this as a matter of daily routine.

[Mark1T]

Most of what you hear is politics. As the nature and number of committed crime changes, the numbers and types of police needed change. Most of the people you hear using it as something to bash May with are either her political opponents or senior members of the police officers union, who are hardly impartial.

In 2010 when the conservatives took office, the deficit was >£150B and it is now <£50B. Cuts were made in all sorts of places and there have definitely been some effects from that, but they are not as large as the media makes them out to be.

I do know that resource management within the police follows some odd priorities. When the Jimmy Saville scandal hit the media, the police put more officers into investigating him (even though he was already dead and couldn't be prosecuted) than the number investigating every murder in the UK put together. On what planet does that sound like a reasonable use of resources?

Thanks, DB. Politics are as dangerous there as here. Reps sent via courier to be hand delivered.

[Jtbny]

Most of what you hear is politics. As the nature and number of committed crime changes, the numbers and types of police needed change. Most of the people you hear using it as something to bash May with are either her political opponents or senior members of the police officers union, who are hardly impartial.

In 2010 when the conservatives took office, the deficit was >£150B and it is now <£50B. Cuts were made in all sorts of places and there have definitely been some effects from that, but they are not as large as the media makes them out to be.

I do know that resource management within the police follows some odd priorities. When the Jimmy Saville scandal hit the media, the police put more officers into investigating him (even though he was already dead and couldn't be prosecuted) than the number investigating every murder in the UK put together. On what planet does that sound like a reasonable use of resources?

Speaking of politics how are DT's tweets at/about Khan being received over there?

[DuracellBunny]

Speaking of politics how are DT's tweets at/about Khan being received over there?

The media has mixed views on them, but I haven't heard any real people mention them. My conclusion is that the media says something because they have to, but the general public DGAF.

IMO Trump shouldn't be tweeting at him, but Khan shouldn't be tweeting or making statements about Trump either. Trump uses Khan to shore up support from the people in the US that don't like Muslims and Khan uses Trump to shore up support from Muslims, anti-Trump people and SJWs. They are both political opportunists.

[Fishman15]

UK homicide rate (all causes) per 100k: 0.9
USA homicide rate (all causes) per 100k: 3.9

Without people carrying guns or knives to protect themselves, people in the UK still manage to be murdered less than a quarter as often as those in the US............

I wonder how much those numbers would change if we could take Chicago out of the mix...

On another note, I've heard that only 10% of the police in the UK are allowed to carry guns. Has it always been that way or is that a recent change? Any stats or info/comments on how this changes their ability to do their job when lives are on the line in emergency situations?

[JediRN]

How much vacation time does the government there require you to have/take if any at all?

Workplace violence is off the charts here in areas, some of it is due to crummy working conditions, poor pay, lousy vacation and health benefits, etc. Bust your ass & still never get ahead and some people just can't take the stress and explode. I don't understand why so many opt for a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

Maybe if we cut more work place regulations the boss's would just see it in their kind hearts to give everyone a raise.

On planet United States. We do stuff like this as a matter of daily routine.

That is how we see ourselves, isn't it?

I wonder how much those numbers would change if we could take Chicago out of the mix...

I did the math. It only changes by 0.350%


and fun chart posted for redicule (spelt inccorectly 4 irany)



In the grand scheme of math, and xtra 200 doesn't change much. More children choke on toys than that.

[Juggertha]

I like stats to put things in perspective. Casues of death, and such.

Because of that, terrorism ranks fairly low on my radar for things to fear.

[Flounderbout]

Beware TL;DR

The media has mixed views on them, but I haven't heard any real people mention them. My conclusion is that the media says something because they have to, but the general public DGAF.

This depends on who your friends are I guess. They do piss me off personally. As for more generally I can only speak for the people in my own social bubble. On the internet they have caused a lot of outrage. But then outrage is cheap on the Internet.

In real life, ATM the election and Brexit are both major talking points over here for anyone who is remotely politically engaged, and Trump almost invariably comes up in that context for one reason or another, since he is widely perceived as an indication of a radical shift in modern politics.

Amongst my friends views about Brexit pretty much reflect the public vote - roughly 50/50. On the election the vast majority support the Conservatives, which is just a reflection of the fact that most of my social circle are well-off (Conservatism in the UK is very different to US Conservatism, and although right wing, nothing like as right wing as in the US), although I have a few friends that support the lunatic left wing Corbyn.

So mostly right wing, and roughly equally pro/anti Europe.

The people on the left think that Trump is the devil incarnate, which I suppose you would expect, although he elicits much stronger negative responses than "normal" Republican presidents like Bush. It may be that is just a sign of the times. As for the bulk of my friends who are on the right, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Trump is anything but an idiot. I have heard one positive thing from anyone I have spoken to in the last few months, which was someone who felt that he had taken positive steps on North Korea that were long overdue. But even that person thought that he was terrible news generally.

That is probably a reflection of a few things:

a) The UK press is universally anti-Trump. That is not because the press is left wing - the tabloids here are very right wing indeed (the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Sun), and the general portrayal even in those papers is of Trump is an ignorant buffoon who spents his time golfing and tweeting nonsense. I think this probably reflects the way the British view politics - we expect our politicians to be reasonably erudite and articulate and "serious" people - there is much less cross-over between politics and entertainment here. Figures from the entertainment industry going into politics is rare. I think the chances of a reality tv star with no political experience at all succeeding in the UK are close to zero, at least for now.

I think that that British attitude is true of leaders generally as compared to the US - I will always remember being struck by the marked contrast between the pre-war speeches of Col Tim Collins and Vice Admiral Keating on the USS Constellation respectively. Different strokes for different folks.

b) He has been, and threatens to be damaging to UK and European interests - particularly his stance on NATO and abandoning Article V, but also his protectionist and isolationist trading stance, and his general dismissive attitude to historic alliances with Europeans. The UK/US special relationship is plainly dead. It could fairly be said that it was not looking very healthy under Obama (and it was reported as being over as far back as Bush in 2010), but lots of people (rather bizarrely) thought that it would be reinvigorated under Trump (particularly Brexiters like Farage etc), and so have been disappointed to see the opposite happen. Obviously most Trump fans don't care about how the US are perceived internationally, but that itself is part of the negative international coverage of Trump. The most persistent negative stereotype of Americans abroad is that they are inward looking, only care about the US and are completely ignorant of world affairs. Trump both personally and by his policies obviously serves to heavily reinforce that stereotype.

b) Right wing Brits are not like right wing Americans, so the partisan support that attaches to Trump from Republicans in the US doesn't have an effect here. On the right wing here there is almost no support for banning abortion, there is no enthusiasm for religion generally mixing with politics, gay rights are very low on the agenda and all major political parties are pro-gay rights. Healthcare is not an issue like in the US because it is free, and the right has no plans to change that, and guns aren't an issue, since there is pretty much universal acceptance of the gun control laws we have - the pro shooting lobby is concerned with protecting rights to hunt and shoot etc, not trying to allow wider access to guns. The real right left divide here is about tax v spending, and that is pretty much it.

c) Climate change denial is a fringe belief in the UK, not a mainstream one. The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the dismantling of the EPA, the deregulation of environmental protections and the promotion of oil-industry execs to positions of power all sell badly in the UK.

In that context the recent tweets criticising Khan are just more of the same really. I don't think anyone found it surprising that Trump would seek to advance his own agenda by the London attacks, or that he would misquote him, or that he would then double down on it when he was called out on it. I do think that he will get a pretty torrid reception in London if he comes though. I hear talk that he is considering cancelling the State visit because he is afraid of the reception he will get, and TBH I think he would be well-advised to.

Other than my own personal experience, and FWIW, this is the only poll I could find on UK Trump opinion.

http://opinium.co.uk/britains-verdic...angerous-work/

It chimes with my experience, but has to be taken with a large pinch of salt like all opinion polls.
Even with a large pinch of salt though, the headline is a pretty astonishing one for a new sitting US President.

"When our poll asked voters which words they most associated with Donald Trump, the most popular were “dangerous” (50%), “unstable” (39%) and “bigot” (35%). Over half of British adults polled (54%) expect Trump to be a below average (10%) or awful (44%) president."

Whichever way up you look at that, it is not exactly signs of projecting a positive image abroad.

Incidentally as a lawyer, while I find the Khan tweets mildly offensive, I find the 'travel ban' tweets much more concerning. When the DOJ is trying to get the courts to overturn the 'travel ban' ban on the basis that it is not a 'travel ban' at all, and Spicer has previously said that it definitely wasn't a 'travel ban', why would Trump, their client, send repeated tweets saying that it is just that. If that were my client I would be livid. But why would he do it? Either he is so monumentally stupid that he doesn't appreciate the damage that it is doing to his own case, which I honestly find difficult to believe, or he is seeking to actively undermine his own case. The only possible reason I can think of for that is that he wants the courts to uphold the ban in the knowledge that when something does inevitably happen, he has a scapegoat to blame it on, and he can try and generate public support for significant constitutional changes on the back of the outrage generated. If that were true, and the President is using American lives to increase his political power, then you should all be genuinely terrified.