Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

None of those are my views. So I'll ask again, which of my opinions do you disagree with?

You don't read your own posts then? All through this thread you have been consistent in your xenophobic utterings. From your posts you clearly have a problem with Islam, Muslims and immigration. Only recently you posted your usual jibe about those of us who don't have a problem with immigration. You accuse another poster (and fellow Saints fan) of odd behaviour yet you deny your own views? There was one thing that I thought gave you a bit of credit and that was that you have been upfront about your views and weren't pretending not to xenophobic as some others on here do. Shame you are now backtracking. Stick to the football thread. Your posts are better there and you seem less confused.

You don't read your own posts then? All through this thread you have been consistent in your xenophobic utterings. From your posts you clearly have a problem with Islam, Muslims and immigration. Only recently you posted your usual jibe about those of us who don't have a problem with immigration. You accuse another poster (and fellow Saints fan) of odd behaviour yet you deny your own views? There was one thing that I thought gave you a bit of credit and that was that you have been upfront about your views and weren't pretending not to xenophobic as some others on here do. Shame you are now backtracking. Stick to the football thread. Your posts are better there and you seem less confused.

I've explained to Sour Mash before how he is ISIS target market and is doing the sort of thing they would like but he's too dense to change his ways.

I've explained to Sour Mash before how he is ISIS target market and is doing the sort of thing they would like but he's too dense to change his ways.

I think the ISIS target market is Muslims in Progressive liberal countries such as the UK who can be convinced to kill 'Infidels' in return of the blessing of Allah.

I mean, i could go back and double check if Sour Mash was the Suicide Bomber who murdered my friend along with 22 other men, women, and children in the Manchester bombing, but i'm pretty sure it wasn't him.

If you want to criticise his reactions, fine. But i'm more concerned about the primary ISIS 'target market' than people's response to atrocities.

I think the ISIS target market is Muslims in Progressive liberal countries such as the UK who can be convinced to kill 'Infidels' in return of the blessing of Allah.

 

I mean, i could go back and double check if Sour Mash was the Suicide Bomber who murdered my friend along with 22 other men, women, and children in the Manchester bombing, but i'm pretty sure it wasn't him.

 

If you want to criticise his reactions, fine. But i'm more concerned about the primary ISIS 'target market' than people's response to atrocities.

Any issues getting terrorists into the country? Someone like Farage suggesting that the wave of refugees will bring with it terrorists - don't worry, those on the left in the west will shoot them down as racist and make sure a few can get it.

Any objection to the spread of mosques or Islamic schools - don't worry, the left will handle that.

Anyone questioning the spread of terrorism across western Europe? The left will handle it, the focus will be on the spread of islamophobia, any westerners pointing out the real issue will be hushed, called racist or a recruiter for Isis (not those spreading the murderous ideology), the message from the media will be everything must be "business as usual", "nothing changes", "part and parcel of living in a big city", don't make a fuss, don't speak up, a quick day of headlines on the news, a quick update of social media avatars, then silence until the next attack.

Police have foiled seven terror plots in the last 6 months in London alone, on top of those attacks that did happen. But some are more upset by those that highlight the problem, than the continued spread of terror.

You’d just love it if ISIS were free to roam and kill across the caliphate wouldn’t you? After all bombing is done by nasty westerners.

Do you ever read what went on in Raqqa, Mosul etc?

So you're saying things have improved since our exploits in Iraq, Syria, Libya?

So you're saying things have improved since our exploits in Iraq, Syria, Libya?

Yes. You only had to see the Ross Kemp documentary to hear about the horrific atrocities being committed in ISIS territory.

Yes. You only had to see the Ross Kemp documentary to hear about the horrific atrocities being committed in ISIS territory.

Um... but ISIS came after our interventions.

Um... but ISIS came after our interventions.

You mean after the 2001 and 2003 invasions? Okay, I thought you were being more recent than that.

Well, nobody has brought down any skyscrapers since then so that's something. Most attacks seem to be low key, low tech, (relatively) low impact, which is an improvement.

You mean after the 2001 and 2003 invasions? Okay, I thought you were being more recent than that.

 

Well, nobody has brought down any skyscrapers since then so that's something. Most attacks seem to be low key, low tech, (relatively) low impact, which is an improvement.

Triple Mcinnes

Um... but ISIS came after our interventions.

So 'we' made ISIS throw (alleged) gay men from rooftops? 'We' were responsible for the regular beheadings in Raqqa's town square of any Syrian who got in their way? 'We' are responsible for ISIS's most violent thugs being Chechens, Gulf Arabs, and South east Asians, as well as British late teens with drug and petty crime problems? And the overwhelming targets of their violence being Syrian and Iraqi civilians?

In short, can you not break free of a simpleton's view of the world, in which all its problems are invariably and exclusively sourced to 'us' (i.e. the evil West)? As if Putin's regime and Assad (and Saddam) were all merely benign actors, whose gross abuses (over 90 percent of all civilian casualties in the Syrian conflict) are wholly determined by what 'we' do?

I was specifically addressing the point about marriage -and no I don't think there is any clear causal relationship between attitudes to marriage and vile events such as Rotherham.

 

Verbal has already written convincingly about the very specific geographic, ethnic and cultural origins of the gang members - ones that don't permit generalisations about Muslims, regardless whether they hold ultra-conservative or liberal attitudes to marriage.

You think there's no relation?

Imagine they'd been a role reversal, and young white men had done it to Muslim girls. We'd have endless discussions on newsnight/panel shows debating what attitudes and prejudices in the white community allowed it to happen.

Now say white men were brought up by their parents to not see Muslim women as pure enough 'wife material' or even girlfriend material they could bring home to parents, and their churches/parents (in some cases) fueled the idea that they were trash. But you honestly think that has no bearing on them then adopting an attitude that they're just good for sexual favors and don't need to be treated with any dignity and respect?

So 'we' made ISIS throw (alleged) gay men from rooftops? 'We' were responsible for the regular beheadings in Raqqa's town square of any Syrian who got in their way? 'We' are responsible for ISIS's most violent thugs being Chechens, Gulf Arabs, and South east Asians, as well as British late teens with drug and petty crime problems? And the overwhelming targets of their violence being Syrian and Iraqi civilians?

 

In short, can you not break free of a simpleton's view of the world, in which all its problems are invariably and exclusively sourced to 'us' (i.e. the evil West)? As if Putin's regime and Assad (and Saddam) were all merely benign actors, whose gross abuses (over 90 percent of all civilian casualties in the Syrian conflict) are wholly determined by what 'we' do?

So you're saying things have improved since our exploits in Iraq, Syria, Libya?

So 'we' made ISIS throw (alleged) gay men from rooftops? 'We' were responsible for the regular beheadings in Raqqa's town square of any Syrian who got in their way? 'We' are responsible for ISIS's most violent thugs being Chechens, Gulf Arabs, and South east Asians, as well as British late teens with drug and petty crime problems? And the overwhelming targets of their violence being Syrian and Iraqi civilians?

 

In short, can you not break free of a simpleton's view of the world, in which all its problems are invariably and exclusively sourced to 'us' (i.e. the evil West)? As if Putin's regime and Assad (and Saddam) were all merely benign actors, whose gross abuses (over 90 percent of all civilian casualties in the Syrian conflict) are wholly determined by what 'we' do?

I think it's fair to say that the war 'we' started in Iraq caused the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to take control.

Can someone confirm that this is fake news? I can't believe this is real but unreal if so.

http://yournewswire.com/sweden-child-marriages/amp/

I think it's fair to say that the war 'we' started in Iraq caused the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to take control.

If you're going to say the rise of ISIS in 2014 was a result of the war stared 11 years previously, then you have to also say that war was a result of the first gulf war 12 years previous, which was initiated wholly by Saddam and received almost worldwide condemnation.

If you're going to say the rise of ISIS in 2014 was a result of the war stared 11 years previously, then you have to also say that war was a result of the first gulf war 12 years previous, which was initiated wholly by Saddam and received almost worldwide condemnation.

Why was nothing done about Saddam when he gassed the Kurds? Why not take it back to when we drew up Iraq's borders?

If you're going to say the rise of ISIS in 2014 was a result of the war stared 11 years previously, then you have to also say that war was a result of the first gulf war 12 years previous, which was initiated wholly by Saddam and received almost worldwide condemnation.

No you don't have to say that.

No you don't have to say that.

Okay, so we're picking a convenient point in the long running conflict in that region to say, "this is where it started because it's the west at fault."?

Okay, so we're picking a convenient point in the long running conflict in that region to say, "this is where it started because it's the west at fault."?

Much of the problems originate from how we and the French carved up the region 100 years ago but that's all history. Having started the illegal war in Iraq the very least we should have done was put sufficient plans in for the country after it ended. the rise of IS in Iraq and Syria is a direct consequence of the lawless vacuume that was left by us.

Much of the problems originate from how we and the French carved up the region 100 years ago but that's all history. Having started the illegal war in Iraq the very least we should have done was put sufficient plans in for the country after it ended. the rise of IS in Iraq and Syria is a direct consequence of the lawless vacuume that was left by us.

To be fair, the people who are saying we should have stayed to sort it out were the same types who were going mad because we hadn't withdrawn our troops years later. Even if Iraq was a mistaken invasion we should have stayed to finish the job but it isn't politically savvy to have people dying when the conflict is seemingly "won" and you have simple minded members of the public screeching to bring our boys home prematurely.

Either way it's a problem 'we' helped create.

first gulf war 12 years previous, which was initiated wholly by Saddam and received almost worldwide condemnation.

Was it? Why did tiny Kuwait keep slant drilling into the oil fields of their much more powerful neighbour? - which is enough to get you shot in Texas. Why had the Americans given Saddam helicopters and the French Super Etendards? What back game was the US playing?

Either way it's a problem 'we' helped create.

Much of the problems originate from how we and the French carved up the region 100 years ago but that's all history. Having started the illegal war in Iraq the very least we should have done was put sufficient plans in for the country after it ended. the rise of IS in Iraq and Syria is a direct consequence of the lawless vacuume that was left by us.

I'm not for a second defending the ancient colonialism of the Brits and the French. As you say it's all history but the first Gulf war is recent enough to be relevant to this. I agree that the vacuum was partly the fault of the war but the Iraqi government we helped install may have survived without the Arab spring. After all that started in Tunisia, a country in which we've had no military involvement.

There's no reason to think Iraq and Saddam wouldn't have ended up like Libya and Gadaffi, with or without our help. Or Egypt, Yemen, Syria or Tunisia for that matter.

Was it? Why did tiny Kuwait keep slant drilling into the oil fields of their much more powerful neighbour? - which is enough to get you shot in Texas. Why had the Americans given Saddam helicopters and the French Super Etendards? What back game was the US playing?

Really, you're buying that? They may or not have been slant drilling, as might every other country in that region. To me he just sounds like Hitler, talking about defending German people when annexing the Sudetenland and the Austrian Anschluss. It's a plausible cover story and nothing more.

Saddam invaded because he owed Kuwait a lot of money from the Iran-Iraq war. Which is also why they had American and French military hardware.

To those who took the **** out of my comments about the trouble in Maidstone. A friend of a friend was killed there on Friday night. He was attacked outside McDonalds at 10:30 by a 15, 16, 17 and 18 year old. His name was Wayne Chester. But it’s ok, none of the attackers were Muslims.

Shooter in Las vegas with automatic weapons. Twitter videos sound chilling.

Double fatal stabbing in Marseille as well yesterday.

Shooter in Las vegas with automatic weapons. Twitter videos sound chilling.

20 dead now being reported.

20 dead now being reported.

Anyone have any idea of the identity yet?

Edit: best not to speculate at this point.

Best not to speculate at this point.

64 year old local man called Stephen Paddock. 50 dead and 200 injured.

If only the crowd had had assault rifles they could have prevented this attack...

If only the crowd had had assault rifles they could have prevented this attack...

In Nevada you can legally walk around with an assault rifle so they may have.

I guess the Yanks think this sort of thing is a price worth paying for their 'right' to carry guns around. ****ing bonkers.

Mental! Why you need to have any kind of gun is beyond me. So easy for these nut jobs to do things like this.

Mental! Why you need to have any kind of gun is beyond me. So easy for these nut jobs to do things like this.

NRA is one of Trump's largest donors as well. I eagerly await his tweets as they should be incredible.

Videos make it sound like a war zone at the time, very scary and sad.

Surely time to resurrect this old favourite.

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?52907-What-is-wrong-with-America#.WdI4M1uPKM9

Sarnia where are you?

In the perverse, topsy-turvy world of the US, today will be a bumper day for gun sales. History suggests that people will be rushing out to buy guns to protect themselves and on the off-chance that any new legislation regulating firearms is introduced.

Mental! Why you need to have any kind of gun is beyond me. So easy for these nut jobs to do things like this.

Have you not been to the US..huge parts of the country are incredibly rural, guns/hunting are part and parcel of that.

Have you not been to the US..huge parts of the country are incredibly rural, guns/hunting are part and parcel of that.

Have you ever hunted with an assault rifle?

"With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison"

Are you aware how nuts that is? Many of my friends own hunting rifles but the US laws are ridiculous.

You don't need heavy calibre fully automatic military hardware to take down bambi.

Have you ever hunted with an assault rifle?

 

"With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison"

 

Are you aware how nuts that is? Many of my friends own hunting rifles but the US laws are ridiculous.

I agree, the obsession goes too far. I'm working out here and city dwellers in my office store guns and when i ask why they just say 'protection', it is strange.

But I was responding to him questioning why anyone 'needs a gun'. Might be hard for someone in urban UK to understand, but do a road trip around the rural deep south or something and you can understand why it's a part of country life out here. That's not to say i agree with their guns laws or the right to semi automated killing machines. But just saying 'why does anyone need a gun' here is a non argument.

You don't need heavy calibre fully automatic military hardware to take down bambi.

The hunting purists see it as cheating and not keeping with tradition; others believe that assault rifles will lead to a fall in the population numbers for big game which will reduce hunting opportunities in the future.

Just this morning I took a shopping cart full to the brim with ammo to the gun section of the store I work at. Only half was shotgun shells. That represents half a week of sales at this small rural town. Even with the hunters, it seems a heck of a lot!

If only the crowd had had assault rifles they could have prevented this attack...

I know this is sarcasm but it's bat sh*t mental the number of Americans who will believe exactly this. I know giving up their constitutional right to bear arms is never going to happen but surely any civilian would at least want restrictions on the types of weapon available.

semi-auto pistols

shot-guns - single shot, double barrel style. No semi-auto stuff

Hunting rifles - Bolt action, single shot.

That covers anything a civilian would ever need to deal with. Home defence, hunting, defence against wildlife etc.

What's quite sad is that I don't actually feel sadness for this event. For the individuals and their families involved it must be heart breaking. As a nation though, when you're screaming at the rest of the world that it's your right to have a fully automatic assault rifle with a telescopic sight, how are we supposed to feel sorry for you.

It reminds me of the joke when a guy walks into a store to buy some Kinder Eggs.

Shop Assistant: "Sorry we're not allowed to sell them, as they are too dangerous".

Shopper: "OK then, I'll just take a couple of assault rifles instead"

Edit: best not to speculate at this point.

I wonder what your speculation was? Perhaps he was/is a member of violent terrorist organisation Antifa?

I wonder what your speculation was? Perhaps he was/is a member of violent terrorist organisation Antifa?

In fairness ISIS claimed responsibility

Have you not been to the US..huge parts of the country are incredibly rural, guns/hunting are part and parcel of that.

One morning while driving to work I saw a man wearing a balaclava and holding a rifle, in parts of the world closer to Britain that has certain connotations that instantly sprang to mind, and made me a little nervous. If this man was in an urban area he would have likely been shot, but in rural Iowa that was a normal Saturday morning during deer season.