RugbyRebels

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

morepork wrote:VG....suspect is the operative term, surely. If you conduct interrogation under the assumption that a suspect "knows" something, then that logic works. However, the assumption can certainly be incorrect. What use torture then?

Like most things in life getting the info you need to achieve an objective, whether it be a winning in the gee gees, or a deft political maneuver, is based on probabilities. It's built into the fabric of the universe, mate.

For shur, there'll be some casualties, but the State's not bothered by that, is it?

The fact is that, if you've got intelligence on someone, and there's a good possibility that they have information on your mark, when all else fails to extract info from them, you're going to use EITs.

In fairness to western intelligence agencies, they're a bit more polite about it, and a bit more civilised. Mind you, the SAVAK learned some tricks from the CIA. Instead of raping yer man, ye rape his wife, and make sure its anal penetration - much more effective. Straight from the Divil's handbook.

Which Tyler wrote:

Coco wrote:That is very good to see and learn. Not everybody uses Facebook, or Twitter, though so naturally would not see these posts. Regarding "any right thinking human being condems this sort of action." - Agree with this, but my point was that many people are still very suspicious of muslims in general... So naturally there are a lot of people unsure of just how "right thinking" muslims are since they never see these communites collectively united in solidarity condemning these horrendous acts on television (how most people are used to getting their news) or anything providing actual face time. Facebook and twitter are so impersonal and intangible.. Not to mention come off as lazy to many people.

I only signed up for Facebook about 2 weeks ago; and those were already on my feed, and so far I've only got close family on my "friends" list.
Before 2 weeks ago though, I was well aware that this sort of statement has been released after each and every attack; they just don't get much media coverage (just enough that I was aware of them). Please note, I pulled the above off my facebook feed, not because I use facebook for news, but because it was really, really easy; also note that one of them had Channel 4 news as the original source, which reaches.... everyone in the UK.
Bear in mind, those 4 facebook posts above had reached 872,000 people between them as of my posting; and there's plenty more than that, and probably more "popular" ones too; let alone any form of media that isn't facebook (such as Channel 4 News).

The likes of the Muslim Council of Britain make press releases, and hold press conferences, post up on facebook (and I'm sure twitter and instgram etc) - I'm not sure what more you want of them here; sending people out door-to-door to every house in the country? Preach on street corners like crazy people? Maybe they should buy advertising space on TV to say "we condemn the act of this idiot"

Now, where are all the messages from christian leaders condemning every high-school shooting in the States? Do all white people have to apologise for the acts of Anders Brejvik and the likes? Or do we just not condemn a billion people based on the actions of 1 idiot who's superficially like them?
If this stuff doesn't appear on your facebook stream, then is it more likely that neither you, nor anyone you follow on facebook particularly cares about this aspect, and doesn't share/like/comment on these things? or that they don't exist?

Zhivago wrote:The Manchester bombing seems to be an indirect consequence our 'liberation' of Libya.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The Manchester bombing seems to be an indirect consequence our 'liberation' of Libya.

Oh please. We'll have some idiots saying this, and the flip side to those idiots will be the other group of idiots saying this is what you get for allowing his parents to come here as refugees.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The Manchester bombing seems to be an indirect consequence our 'liberation' of Libya.

Oh please. We'll have some idiots saying this, and the flip side to those idiots will be the other group of idiots saying this is what you get for allowing his parents to come here as refugees.

Why is it idiotic?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Oh please. We'll have some idiots saying this, and the flip side to those idiots will be the other group of idiots saying this is what you get for allowing his parents to come here as refugees.

Why is it idiotic?

It's just too small as a piece of thinking. And if we're going to go with a small piece of thinking then it'd be the individual was a thick as shit sick fuck.

We can't say one shouldn't look for an explanation of the act of a sick bastard who tried to blow up some happy children as there isn't a justification, in reality that sort of act does come from rage, and there's no way that sort of rage stems from simply looking to our actions in Libya. That's the wider picture, in the case of this family then his Dad was on the inside in Gaddafi's regime and the family only fled from Libya after some falling out within the ruling regime, they weren't simply one of the many oppressed families, so we're perhaps not looking at people raised with any sort of sensible view of the world if they were on the inside of Gaddafi's regime

So if you want to go with a tag line that out actions in Libya wrought this bombing then (a) you really should also advocate with those who say this is why we shouldn't accept refugees, and (b) if one violent act justifies another then the act in Manchester justifies revenge attacks on Islam. Basically it's an idiotic piece of thinking.

Zhivago wrote:The Manchester bombing seems to be an indirect consequence our 'liberation' of Libya.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Why is it idiotic?

It's just too small as a piece of thinking. And if we're going to go with a small piece of thinking then it'd be the individual was a thick as shit sick fuck.

We can't say one shouldn't look for an explanation of the act of a sick bastard who tried to blow up some happy children as there isn't a justification, in reality that sort of act does come from rage, and there's no way that sort of rage stems from simply looking to our actions in Libya. That's the wider picture, in the case of this family then his Dad was on the inside in Gaddafi's regime and the family only fled from Libya after some falling out within the ruling regime, they weren't simply one of the many oppressed families, so we're perhaps not looking at people raised with any sort of sensible view of the world if they were on the inside of Gaddafi's regime

So if you want to go with a tag line that out actions in Libya wrought this bombing then (a) you really should also advocate with those who say this is why we shouldn't accept refugees, and (b) if one violent act justifies another then the act in Manchester justifies revenge attacks on Islam. Basically it's an idiotic piece of thinking.

Woah there Nellie. I seek only understanding. I'm not the sort of person who thinks in 'an eye for an eye' way. I only want us to be honest about some of the side effects of our regime change projects. Because we really really need to learn our lessons. Iraq, Libya, Syria...

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's just too small as a piece of thinking. And if we're going to go with a small piece of thinking then it'd be the individual was a thick as shit sick fuck.

We can't say one shouldn't look for an explanation of the act of a sick bastard who tried to blow up some happy children as there isn't a justification, in reality that sort of act does come from rage, and there's no way that sort of rage stems from simply looking to our actions in Libya. That's the wider picture, in the case of this family then his Dad was on the inside in Gaddafi's regime and the family only fled from Libya after some falling out within the ruling regime, they weren't simply one of the many oppressed families, so we're perhaps not looking at people raised with any sort of sensible view of the world if they were on the inside of Gaddafi's regime

So if you want to go with a tag line that out actions in Libya wrought this bombing then (a) you really should also advocate with those who say this is why we shouldn't accept refugees, and (b) if one violent act justifies another then the act in Manchester justifies revenge attacks on Islam. Basically it's an idiotic piece of thinking.

Woah there Nellie. I seek only understanding. I'm not the sort of person who thinks in 'an eye for an eye' way. I only want us to be honest about some of the side effects of our regime change projects. Because we really really need to learn our lessons. Iraq, Libya, Syria...

If you want to excuse/explain one violent act by another then would it not follow they could all have such excuses?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Woah there Nellie. I seek only understanding. I'm not the sort of person who thinks in 'an eye for an eye' way. I only want us to be honest about some of the side effects of our regime change projects. Because we really really need to learn our lessons. Iraq, Libya, Syria...

If you want to excuse/explain one violent act by another then would it not follow they could all have such excuses?

If you think explaining is the same as excusing, then you have serious mental deficiencies. The solution to all problems lies in understanding the problem. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring inconvenient truths is a childish way to deal with reality.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Why is it idiotic?

It's just too small as a piece of thinking. And if we're going to go with a small piece of thinking then it'd be the individual was a thick as shit sick fuck.

We can't say one shouldn't look for an explanation of the act of a sick bastard who tried to blow up some happy children as there isn't a justification, in reality that sort of act does come from rage, and there's no way that sort of rage stems from simply looking to our actions in Libya. That's the wider picture, in the case of this family then his Dad was on the inside in Gaddafi's regime and the family only fled from Libya after some falling out within the ruling regime, they weren't simply one of the many oppressed families, so we're perhaps not looking at people raised with any sort of sensible view of the world if they were on the inside of Gaddafi's regime

So if you want to go with a tag line that out actions in Libya wrought this bombing then (a) you really should also advocate with those who say this is why we shouldn't accept refugees, and (b) if one violent act justifies another then the act in Manchester justifies revenge attacks on Islam. Basically it's an idiotic piece of thinking.

Woah there Nellie. I seek only understanding. I'm not the sort of person who thinks in 'an eye for an eye' way. I only want us to be honest about some of the side effects of our regime change projects. Because we really really need to learn our lessons. Iraq, Libya, Syria...

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
If you want to excuse/explain one violent act by another then would it not follow they could all have such excuses?

If you think explaining is the same as excusing, then you have serious mental deficiencies. The solution to all problems lies in understanding the problem. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring inconvenient truths is a childish way to deal with reality.

But citing our involvement in Libya isn't an explanation, there's a much bigger picture than that, simply referring to our actions Libya during the removal of Gaddafi is a nonsense comment seemingly more about wanting to take a pop at our then Government than seeking to set out any real explanation.

Lord Lucan wrote:Virtue signalling on social media by muslims doesn't cut it with me, they need to do more, a lot more.

What we have now is a war, on the one side we have the politically correct west, on the other radical islam, I can only see one winner, one side is too scared to really take the gloves off and act, in case they offend someone, when I mean someone I mean the muslim community living in their land.
The radicals must be laughing at how pathetic and weak we are, they blow us up, and we take more of their people in and look after them, its a joke.

The security services are said to have around 3000 radicals in the UK on their radar, I'd round the lot of them up, and put them in internment camps.
Their are lots of islands off the coast of Scotland, find a nice remote barren one, and stick them all on there, dump a load of lumber off there as well, and if they can be bothered they can make shelter for themselves, if they are too lazy or don't know how then let them be exposed to the elements.
Let them stay there while the security services find time to process them.
I can't believe we are in a situation where British jihadis have spent time in Syria and can come back and walk our streets, who knows what atrocities they have committed there, the Scottish islands idea is too good for them, they should be sent to a "holding center" then directed towards a door marked free benefits and council flats this way, once through the door they find themselves free falling to the floor of a disused quarry.
Fight fire with fire, we are fighting fire with social workers, it isn't working.

canta_brian wrote:I see that vile bitch Hopkins has chosen the wrong time to show her true colours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40057165

No longer has an lbc platform

Lord Lucan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I see that vile bitch Hopkins has chosen the wrong time to show her true colours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40057165

No longer has an lbc platform

ooh I say how terribly monstrous, "final solution" what a thing to say, she should be strung up from the nearest yardarm immediately. If she is saying all terrorists should be topped I agree with her, or is it just the use of the phrase "final solution" that has got everyone in a tizz, whichever one it is, there are bigger and more important things to be concerned with right now than having a go at someone for not being pc.

I like her, she is one of the few who says what most people are thinking, she doesn't toe the lamestream media line.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's just too small as a piece of thinking. And if we're going to go with a small piece of thinking then it'd be the individual was a thick as shit sick fuck.

We can't say one shouldn't look for an explanation of the act of a sick bastard who tried to blow up some happy children as there isn't a justification, in reality that sort of act does come from rage, and there's no way that sort of rage stems from simply looking to our actions in Libya. That's the wider picture, in the case of this family then his Dad was on the inside in Gaddafi's regime and the family only fled from Libya after some falling out within the ruling regime, they weren't simply one of the many oppressed families, so we're perhaps not looking at people raised with any sort of sensible view of the world if they were on the inside of Gaddafi's regime

So if you want to go with a tag line that out actions in Libya wrought this bombing then (a) you really should also advocate with those who say this is why we shouldn't accept refugees, and (b) if one violent act justifies another then the act in Manchester justifies revenge attacks on Islam. Basically it's an idiotic piece of thinking.

Woah there Nellie. I seek only understanding. I'm not the sort of person who thinks in 'an eye for an eye' way. I only want us to be honest about some of the side effects of our regime change projects. Because we really really need to learn our lessons. Iraq, Libya, Syria...

The actions of the West in the Middle East are a factor. But I don't think they are the only factor. Western governments have intervened, in a number of ways, across the globe, yet the direct threat to us remains from a particular group. There are wider issues here as well.

It would be foolish to ignore the politics and religion of the ME and the manner in which there are serious undercurrents in many of the countries that make up the region - both religious, ethnic and tribal. it also must not be ignored that many of the victims of suicide bombers (as well as other forms of attack) by Islamic terrorists are other muslims in the Middle East. They aren't being killed because they are British, or because they suicide bombers are trying to pressurise a western government. The 'debate' over the modernisation of Islam isn't new and is, in many countries, tied up in the wider issues.

I agree that we need to understand the problem better, but that understanding requires a wider view than its all the fault of Bush and Blair for invading Iraq. Its also far too easy to blame Syria and Libya on the west, thus exonerating the local rulers of any responsibility for their actions in the ensuring civil war.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think she's a fucking moron and generally a disgusting person but I'm actually kind of surprised that's what has done for her.

What is the significance of that particular phrase? Did Hitler say it?

She did say it referring to terrorists rather than all muslims or brown people right?