The General Political Thread

[Furrnox]

Whoops wrong thread.

[Riddlez]

Oh cool, we are disagreeing about the term 'war'

You measure in casualties, I measure in direct intensity of the conflict and in what amount it affects the normal people.

[Karth]

You have an attacker who literally shows up on a documentary about jihadis next door and years later is allowed to carry this attack out. That's an even bigger problem, homegrown radicalization being fostered and not monitored at all

[Edwin]

For UK officials/government workers being called a racist is a fate worse than death (see Rotherham).

[Riddlez]

You have an attacker who literally shows up on a documentary about jihadis next door and years later is allowed to carry this attack out. That's an even bigger problem, homegrown radicalization being fostered and not monitored at all

This is bullshit and you know it. The attacks of this year have shown all these people were under scrutiny from the intel agencies at some point. They just weren't deemed enough of a threat.

And that is logical, if you had an organised group that is planning to bomb a movie theatre that will kill 200 people or you have someone who seems to maybe be preparing some sort of attack... what will you focus on?

And yues you have to choose in this scenario, because you can't watch everyone who is radical, in whatever belief, because that is stupid and you won't have the resources anyway.

[StevenChilton]

It's estimated there are 23,000 Islamic extremists living in the UK.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

To monitor someone 24/7 it takes at minimum 12 officers, and perhaps as many as 20. 12 x 23,000 would be 276,000 officers. It's plainly impossible to have that many people working for MI5 (even more so when you consider that at its height the East German Stasi had 91,000 personnel).

[Riddlez]

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation, this is kinda what you can expect. 7 deaths is objectively not even interesting. More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

[Edwin]

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation, this is kinda what you can expect. 7 deaths is objectively not even interesting. More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

I knew you were a moron when you started picking fights against Chilton, but this is just comedic. Those 7 deaths could have been avoided if people with your virtue-signalling brain-dead mindset weren't weighing on the minds of the authorities.

[junedragon]

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation, this is kinda what you can expect. 7 deaths is objectively not even interesting. More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

I will never understand the thought process that allows people to contort their way to this line of reasoning. Lets go through it piece by piece

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation,  this is kinda what you can expect

So we start by victim blaming (you belong to x country which may have offended y country therefore you can expect your innocent women and children to be blown up in the streets *shrug*). Ignore the fact that a subset of islam has been doing shit like this since the 7th century. Ignore the fact they are also attacking countries like sweden which have taken in loads of refugees and not done virtually anything in the middle east. Ignore the fact the worst terror attacks are in the middle east itself (TIL muslim countries' have "so many enemies" in themselves).

7 deaths is objectively not even interesting

So now we quantify human life by numbers? At how many women and children butchered does it start to get your attention? How many innocent lives snuffed out before it becomes a tragedy? But that's beside the point. The real point is are we supposed to just shrug it off because it was "only" 7 innocents killed in the streets? What if they had killed 70? 700? 7000? You know that is what they would love to achieve, a 9/11 or worse scale attack. Shrugging the threat of islamic terror off because they "only" killed a few people this time is literally the exact same logic as saying "we can ignore climate change cause even though it may one day be catastrophic we have only seen 'objectively not even interesting' impact so far"

More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

And lastly we have a false equivalence between car ACCIDENTS and deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

[Riddlez]

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation, this is kinda what you can expect. 7 deaths is objectively not even interesting. More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

I knew you were a moron when you started picking fights against Chilton, but this is just comedic. Those 7 deaths could have been avoided if people with your virtue-signalling brain-dead mindset weren't weighing on the minds of the authorities.

Sure, it could have been prevented, IF the attackers would have been discovered quicker, IF the intel agencies thought they were a legitimate threat, IF they'd've had the oppertunity to close the cell down. It has nothing to do with people having the same kind of brain (?) as I do.


As for June:

You go from the perspective of a random citizen. Of course they don't deserve this, nobody really does deserve to be killed randomly. OKay yes I was generalising a bit when it is something you can expect when you have so many enemies, but still, with the kind of terrorism that is out there, it isn't a matter of 'if', it's a matter of 'when' it is going to happen. This is not, in any way, meant to ignore the severity of terrorism as a whole. Still, All things considered, 7 deaths is not that much for a terror attack. So yes, in the broader scheme of thigs, it isn't worth much, in terms of the radical islamists 'winning a war against the West'.

Perhaps it may be a false comparison between car accidents and terrorism deaths, but truly, the terrorism we see isn't half as powerful as it could be.
There are incredibly easy ways of shutting down parts of a country and completely fucking up, for example, Wall Street, The capitol, JFK Airport or the Transatlantic Communications Cable.
I won't go into how, but you'll have to trust me, it's stupendously easy.

There would, however, not have to be a single death involved (of course, in the aftermatch the most vulnerable would die, or at least some of them).
This is the point I am trying to make, for the past 37.000 times terrorism came up.

It is not the goal of terrorists to target the weakest spots in out infrastructure, they don't seek for the most destructive ways to target our countries. They only mean to put fear into us.
To quote Thatcher (which is dodgy, I know)

"All attempts by terrorists to destroy democracy, will fail".

there is a truth to that, because 7, 22, 87, or even 137 people at a time, will not even put a minor dent in our society. But that ius only, if we won't let them achieve the soul purpose of their attacks: installing fear.

[Cazasar]

Obviously, when you have so many enemies as a nation, this is kinda what you can expect. 7 deaths is objectively not even interesting. More people have died within a single car crash, with less media coverage.

I knew you were a moron when you started picking fights against Chilton, but this is just comedic. Those 7 deaths could have been avoided if people with your virtue-signalling brain-dead mindset weren't weighing on the minds of the authorities.

Sure, it could have been prevented, IF the attackers would have been discovered quicker, IF the intel agencies thought they were a legitimate threat, IF they'd've had the oppertunity to close the cell down. It has nothing to do with people having the same kind of brain (?) as I do.


As for June:

You go from the perspective of a random citizen. Of course they don't deserve this, nobody really does deserve to be killed randomly. OKay yes I was generalising a bit when it is something you can expect when you have so many enemies, but still, with the kind of terrorism that is out there, it isn't a matter of 'if', it's a matter of 'when' it is going to happen. This is not, in any way, meant to ignore the severity of terrorism as a whole. Still, All things considered, 7 deaths is not that much for a terror attack. So yes, in the broader scheme of thigs, it isn't worth much, in terms of the radical islamists 'winning a war against the West'.

Perhaps it may be a false comparison between car accidents and terrorism deaths, but truly, the terrorism we see isn't half as powerful as it could be.
There are incredibly easy ways of shutting down parts of a country and completely fucking up, for example, Wall Street, The capitol, JFK Airport or the Transatlantic Communications Cable.
I won't go into how, but you'll have to trust me, it's stupendously easy.

There would, however, not have to be a single death involved (of course, in the aftermatch the most vulnerable would die, or at least some of them).
This is the point I am trying to make, for the past 37.000 times terrorism came up.

It is not the goal of terrorists to target the weakest spots in out infrastructure, they don't seek for the most destructive ways to target our countries. They only mean to put fear into us.
To quote Thatcher (which is dodgy, I know)

"All attempts by terrorists to destroy democracy, will fail".

there is a truth to that, because 7, 22, 87, or even 137 people at a time, will not even put a minor dent in our society. But that ius only, if we won't let them achieve the soul purpose of their attacks: installing fear.

Its not like its pretty easy to crack down on what is causing these attacks tho *thinking emoji*

[Riddlez]

it is pretty hard to crack down on. You'd be waging a conventional war on an idea.

[Cazasar]

it is pretty hard to crack down on. You'd be waging a conventional war on an idea.

Well everyone ignoring the fact that Islam is the cause for these attacks will SURELY help

[Karth]

It's estimated there are 23,000 Islamic extremists living in the UK.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

To monitor someone 24/7 it takes at minimum 12 officers, and perhaps as many as 20. 12 x 23,000 would be 276,000 officers. It's plainly impossible to have that many people working for MI5 (even more so when you consider that at its height the East German Stasi had 91,000 personnel).

Hmm maybe you should have a British NSA 
Might help

[Edwin]

It's estimated there are 23,000 Islamic extremists living in the UK.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

To monitor someone 24/7 it takes at minimum 12 officers, and perhaps as many as 20. 12 x 23,000 would be 276,000 officers. It's plainly impossible to have that many people working for MI5 (even more so when you consider that at its height the East German Stasi had 91,000 personnel).

Hmm maybe you should have a British NSA 
Might help

One guy was on a British TV program and was even confronted by counter-terrorism agents and still nothing happened. I doubt another agency would make a difference lol


Could use a UK version of the Patriot Act though