Increased Security at events, and declining refugees is pointless

I don't know about you, but I havent killed anyone.

a reply to: Grambler

But you have. At least indirectly . Any of us in the US that pay taxes have a hand in the death of any innocent that was killed by the bombs or bullets those taxes payed for. I know it's not something good people want to hear but it's true.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

I don't know about you, but I havent killed anyone.

a reply to: Grambler

But you have. At least indirectly . Any of us in the US that pay taxes have a hand in the death of any innocent that was killed by the bombs or bullets those taxes payed for. I know it's not something good people want to hear but it's true.

Ok but if everyone has indirectly killed someone, what is the point of mentioning it.

Anyone who has ever burned a fossil fuel, or even coal or wood has lead to environmental damage, and have indirectly killed.

So by paying taxes in which my government kills people, they are really just killing people that have killed other people, this justifying it.

In fact the world is over populated, so by contributing to deaths today, I am making the world a better place for tomorrow. By attempting to end this killing, you are actually causing pain for future people, this being immoral.

Or how about we don't try to equate someone paying taxes to a person that straps a bomb on themselves to kill young girls.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero

Publically executing them would be a start.

There has to be a widely multifaceted approach to the problem of terrorism to even begin to make inroads into slowing it.

I agree with swift execution for terrorists, though would public executions traumatize them or us more? It probably wouldn't stop a lot of them -- zealots don't think clearly -- but it might stop a few. They certainly invited it upon themselves. Let's save the hugs for those that do good things for people. Like not blow them up. I think we also must disengage from the middle east as much as possible, save to squash some ISIS.

"Morals" are great, but they are pointless if you're dead, if your family is killed because of some false sense of morality. What is the point of that? That one could feel pretentiously morally-superior to others? How great would that feel if it was your child killed? Or your mother? Your wife? Your husband? It will not bring them back.

What is morality? Isn't that the crux of the question of a never-ending war of terror with the subtext of religious zealotry? We may have to find an answer to prevail. The "enemy" has a very clear message about what they consider "moral". As appalling as it is, if we lose, that is what we will adopt as our civilization fades from history.

Our cultural morality of western civilization has become nothing but consumerism. I fear it is not up to the task.

I don't think that added security will prevent such attacks, it may deter some and cause perpetrators to consider other targets, e.g. outdoor markets and shopping parades at times when busy and many other places which cant be defended and almost impossible to stop bombers with body belts or shopping bag bombs etc.

The only way to reduce or minimize attacks is to take proper preventative measures and that may mean changing some laws to accommodate such and in my view necessary measures!

These would be as follows:

1. All those who went to fight with ISIS should be banned from the UK regardless of their nationality and those already having returned jailed for life!
2. All those on watch lists or anyone consider to be a potential terror risk should be electronically tagged with the choice to leave the UK forever if they don't agree to that.
3. It should be made a serious criminal offense subject to a minimum of 10 years in jail for accessing and downloading material from known terrorist sympathizer websites or distributing terror hate material or preaching extremist views or recruiting others to become potential terrorists.
4. The death penalty short and swift should be introduced for those caught plotting a terror attack or having survived an attack.
5. All none UK citizens who are perceived to be a threat should be returned to their home countries immediately.
6. Use special forces to go after all those who are involved in plotting attacks from abroad and body bag them.
This would be a good start and would show to the people of the UK and the world that the UK Government means business and truly intends to takle all measures necessary to protect our children!!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lucidparadox

We have to make the consequences of acts of terror so terrible, that those who would do so, change their effing minds.

Until we do that, we will suffer, our society will suffer, innocent men, women and children will continue to suffer.

So in a nutshell, you are saying that to cause suffering is the way to stop suffering.

a reply to: Grambler

Anyone who has ever burned a fossil fuel, or even coal or wood has lead to environmental damage, and have indirectly killed.

This is true. And it pains me everyday.

So by paying taxes in which my government kills people, they are really just killing people that have killed other people, this justifying it.

Are government kills innocent (by accident mostly) people as well. Their blood is on my hands.

In fact the world is over populated, so by contributing to deaths today, I am making the world a better place for tomorrow. By attempting to end this killing, you are actually causing pain for future people, this being immoral.

There is logic to that statement. At least until we have learned to properly use or resources and not waste so much.

Or how about we don't try to equate someone paying taxes to a person that straps a bomb on themselves to kill young girls.

I'm not , because it isn't. Your right the average US citizen is no where near the monster that those guys are, not even close. I was just pointing out the fact that no one is truly innocent, not you, not me , not any of us.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Eh I guess you are right. Its just irrelevant.

If we are all guilty, then guilt ceases to become something worth mentioning.

It only leads to making excuses for the truly heinous.

a reply to: Grambler

Where are the bill hicks and george carlins when we need them.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero

The only way to defeat a monster is being a bigger, meaner monster.

I rally don't want our society to surrender to these cowards.

We smashed Iraq and Libya for nothing. Kids are dying daily (not only in Manchester) because of our actions. Aren't we already bigger monsters ?

We?

I don't know about you, but I havent killed anyone.

This sort of rationalization is dangerous and circular.

Lets take it to another step. Is a person that lives in Isis controlled territory and maybe gives them crops because he had to, but has never personally had violence on anyone a monster?

If you think know, then why would a regular citizen in a western country be responsible.

So instead of getting into convoluted, philosophical areas I will just say no, we (as in us havig this discussion) are not bigger monsters than the people that bombed a chhildrens concert.

Who voted on Bush & Blair twice ? Who elected and supported governments that smashed Iraq and Libya ? A person that lives in isis controlled area and gives them crops does it out of fear, but he doesent want them there. Isis is only there because we made a power vacuum after removing Saddam and Gaddafi, even blair admits it.
But i dont expect you to agree with me. Its just pathetic that people blame every muslim for isis yet you don't take responsibility for the atrocities your governmets have done even though you put them in office in first place.

Who is blaming "every Muslim". Whoever is is insane.

I didn't vote for Bush or blair. In noticed you left war monger Obama of the=at list, I ddn't vote for him either.

And believe it or not those politicians and most have very low approval rates.

The person n a Isis controlled area may not even do so out of fear, he just has no power to change who is in charge.

This is not to say that we do not bear some responsibility for the actions of our elected leaders.

But we are not worse than the people that killed those children.

How are we any better ?
Hell, you wouldnt even know about this if it wasnt for Wikileaks. Imagine how many atrocities our military's have comited that have simply been brushed under a rug ?
How many times have we bombed hospitals, funurals, weddings ? You think our bombs dont kill children ? Oh yeah, when we kill innocents its called collateral damage and not terrorism.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

Where are the bill hicks and george carlins when we need them.

We will find out someday.

Just keep that third eye ready

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Oh yeah, when we kill innocents its called collateral damage and not terrorism

It's not the same. terrorism i designed to cause fear. Collateral damage is a mistake (for the most part) made while we were trying to kill not scare an enemy.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Look you have an immense amount of guilt, and I am sorry for you.

Being a citizen of a country with almost no way to change the power structure, and with being forced to pay taxes, does not make you as bad as a person who straps a bomb to themselves to blow up small children.

I can't believe I have to make that claim.

How is what you are doing any better than someone who blames all Muslims for the acts of the terrorists that attack at the concert?

Both of you are assigning collective guilt.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

That is a good point. And I am 100% against torture and any retribution against those not involved.

Otoh, say, if someome comes at you with a knife intending to kill you and you are just sitting there, do you A. Let the attacker kill you because you dont want to increase suffering by hurting or offending the attacker B. Get up and defend yourself because its a battle of life and death. C. Run away until the attacker finds you again and again tries to kill you, making you choose once again. Repeat.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Oh yeah, when we kill innocents its called collateral damage and not terrorism

It's not the same. terrorism i designed to cause fear. Collateral damage is a mistake (for the most part) made while we were trying to kill not scare an enemy.

They have different purposes but the outcome is still the same, innocent people die. Terrorist gets killed or goes to trial for the crimes, but the one who killes 200 people by "mistake" goes free and recieves professional help and probably a good pension and retirement bonuses. And how do we know it just was a mistake ? Because you heard it on CNN ?

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Oh yeah, when we kill innocents its called collateral damage and not terrorism

It's not the same. terrorism i designed to cause fear. Collateral damage is a mistake (for the most part) made while we were trying to kill not scare an enemy.

They have different purposes but the outcome is still the same, innocent people die. Terrorist gets killed or goes to trial for the crimes, but the one who killes 200 people by "mistake" goes free and recieves professional help and probably a good pension and retirement bonuses. And how do we know it just was a mistake ? Because you heard it on CNN ?

Do you really not see a difference in those two people?

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Do you feel that if there are people found to have collaborated with this terrorist at the concert that they should be punished?

If so what should that punishment be?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Do you feel that if there are people found to have collaborated with this terrorist at the concert that they should be punished?

If so what should that punishment be?

Castration and life in prison. Wouldn't that be the worst thing to do to a muslim terrorists? I think they believe they will have the same bodies they have on earth when they get to heaven right? Can't enjoy those virgins without the right equipment.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

That is a good point. And I am 100% against torture and any retribution against those not involved.

Otoh, say, if someome comes at you with a knife intending to kill you and you are just sitting there, do you A. Let the attacker kill you because you dont want to increase suffering by hurting or offending the attacker B. Get up and defend yourself because its a battle of life and death. C. Run away until the attacker finds you again and again tries to kill you, making you choose once again. Repeat.

The answer is B.

Look I really have no answer to this mess, all I know is that as soon as we start to round people up nazi style we have lost.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Look you have an immense amount of guilt, and I am sorry for you.

Being a citizen of a country with almost no way to change the power structure, and with being forced to pay taxes, does not make you as bad as a person who straps a bomb to themselves to blow up small children.

I can't believe I have to make that claim.

How is what you are doing any better than someone who blames all Muslims for the acts of the terrorists that attack at the concert?

Both of you are assigning collective guilt.

My point is just supporting the OP's theory that we need to start blaming ourself for terrorism and not just the "other side"! After every terrorist attack you can read comments on every major news outlet how we should deport muslims , kill muslims, bomb muslims, ban islam. People are demanding muslims take more responsibility yet they dont want to claim any responsibility for actions of their governments(who they elected) for the mess we are in today. Why is it that these terrorists are all former drug addicts, criminals, prior known to police and in general outcasts ? If it truly was only religion that drives them than why dont we ever here about a muslim with a university degree and a decent job blowing himself up in the name of Allah ? You don't because a normal functioning person would never blow themselves up for any ideals.
Here in my country, the ethnic people who have converted from christianity to Wahabi version of islam were all outcasts. They usually come from broken homes, tough childhood, drug addiction or are in general struggling to be accepted by the society so they join the only group that opposes the society they were rejected from. Its the same with muslims, all the same traits both for those who converted and those who were born muslim that drive them to do these despicable acts. I can bet that once "islamic" terrorism ends there still will be terrorism just in the name of something else and it will still be the same "rejects" who will do the killing.
Im not making any excuses here for the terrorists, but we as a society need to identify these individuals amd help them or lock them up before they go on a killing spree.
Terrorism is more complex so it can be solved by bombing, hanging or just blaming it on a religion or an ideology.

If it truly was only religion that drives them than why dont we ever here about a muslim with a university degree and a decent job blowing himself up in the name of Allah ?

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

I've never thought about that. star for you.