Printable View
Patronizing me now eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I'm not advocating getting rid of all security, and anyone who suggests that as a counter is really deflecting from the good point I made.
Now, if the tubes had had armed guards on and thus had not been a "soft target" I'm sure the terrorists (see?) would have struck elsewhere.
Because if you take the racist elements out he would have no arguments, he isn't against 'terrorists', he's against Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
That is both sectarian bigotry and totally offensive. I for one have no time for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Any semblance of credibility you may have had is lost as far as I am concerned, with that one comment.
That's like saying Catholics waged a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland and in England. I am quite sure that most Catholics in Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales Spain, Italy, Australia, The USA, Canadia ... in fact all over the World had nothing to do with it and decried the violence and murder as totally unacceptable.
Very poor form indeed.
@MChesh: If they were stopped from bombing the Tubes, they may have struck elsewhere.. With security elswhere they would have been stopped too, thus making their mission so much more difficult.
@Rio: Welcome back to the thread..
I am not a racist. Just for your info there are also Jewish terrorists who tried and also succeeded to murder a number of innocent Palestinians in the Territories (they were settlers).
@JP:
I said i had made a mistake... Did you miss that post?
Is this where you said you made a mistake "@your second comment... OK, you're right, I shall refer to them as the Muslim Terrorists from now on." Coz it doesn't look like it to me. Saying "I made a mistake" is normally more apologetic than sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I do however agree that you are not a racist, being Muslim is not a race. You are a bigot.
The "second-wave" were still able to strike despite increased security after the first attacks. London was in a heightened state of security and they still got to their targets and would have killed more if not for faulty bombs. More security didn't prevent further terrorist attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
So even if we had this extra secuirty you say we should have had four years ago I think these attacks would have occurred as they did.
Edit: Post 666 bitches. :01:
So what's your suggestion then, MChesh, to prevent terrorists (see?) from attacking and killing us on the streets?
We already stated.
You have lots of security and men with guns stopping them killing you on the streets... your in favour of that so you have answered your own question too.
We dont want lots of men with guns around stopping them killing us in the streets thanks. Whether its a terrorist that shoots or a police mistake is immaterial to a corpse.
I find that statement extremely odd.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
You say you wouldn't mid having hundreds of supposed bombers loose on the streets rather than a slight distortion of your life to make sure none of them will detonate..?
Extremely unusual, I must say. :huh:
I feel much safer; and have done for decades, with the threat of terrorism over the sight of Armed Police, there for my "protection".
If i die by the bullet, I at least want to know that it was on purpose.. whoever shoots me ;)
I've told you before, I wouldnt trust half our squaddies with guns, never mind our coppers. :unsure: