431–440 of 672 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outlawing guns is a lot like outlawing drugs. If you want them, you can get them.
Drugs I could find. Guns? Wouldn't have a clue where to start.
Or just go to a gun show in the South.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria I would be quite surprised if the EU decided against further intervention by this. If anything, I would expect them to intervene more.
They should do neither and simply carry on with the plans they had to date. Any reaction beyond police action to find out what the chain of command is and then targeting those individuals specifically is playing into their hands.
This isn't a game won by winning a debate. When one side can be essentially removed from the field, that is an option, even if the side being removed wanted that line of strategy to unfold. Controlling the plays doesn't mean you win the game.
Unbeknownst to me, I have a proclivity for alcoholism. I am libertarian during a prohibition and work to remove limitations on what, when, where, and how I imbibe. I am successful in deregulating alcohol... then I become alcoholic and die from liver failure... I WIN!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were active shooters in this instance. Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.
Please give an example of a US terrorist attack on a theater/school/whatever when the citizens stopped the attack.
-----
Here are 12.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had a wife, grandmother, kids, etc. in a dangerous war zone or refugee camp, there is no way in hell that I would leave them behind. Not gonna happen.
Oh you would, if that was the only way to ensure survival and/or a better future for them. It would be painful, but you would feel you have to do this.
I would send the wife and kids first before going myself.
The war on terror has been going on for 15 years now - are there more terrorists in 2000 or 2015? Sooner or later, we will have to come to the realization that terrorism cannot be eliminated by force. Stop destabilizing Arab countries, stop imperial interference in Northern Africa, and perhaps we'll see an end to this nonsense.
I'm curious, under what logic would this stop or get any better if we allow the cancer to grow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see how arming citizens would prevent bombs from blowing them up. What the hell is wrong with people, suggesting guns as a solution to unpredictable violent situations where guns wouldn't make any difference. You arm citizens, now what? Shoot anyone that looks mildly suspicious? Hear a bomb go off, you take out your gun then scare the shit out of people surrounding you, then get shot by somebody else that t…
There were active shooters in this instance. Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.
I've seriously considered the "arm your citizens" argument, and honestly can't think of it helping, at all.
These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill muggers; they're actively thinking about inflicting the highest casualties in the most efficient manner.
Today it's shootings since most people wouldn't be armed, tomorrow it's something else that guns won't prevent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced that people linking immigrants and terrorism are particularly worried about the actual immigrants turning out to be terrorists in disguise. It's more a worry that they will just add to the ghettoisation of Islamic communities, which is precisely where this latest crop of French terrorists seem to have sprung from.
> I'm not convinced that people linking immigrants and terrorism are particularly worried about the actual immigrants turning out to be terrorists in disguise. You'd be really surprised. Your point is a valid one, but one I seldom see brought up - most people are just worried that for every 100 immigrants there's a couple of actual terrorists in the lot... Mostly because nobody's told them how stupid that notion is.
Oh some people try. Hell, I told that to many people myself. People don't care about things like actually being reasonable. Instead, they're afraid and are looking to rationalize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data on terrorist attacks does not support this conclusion. Terrorism is rarely effective in its political goals and studies have concluded that it is not a rational or cost effective strategy.
Citation needed. The US and Israel are 2 rather successful examples of countries born out of terrorism.
I don't see any parallel whatsoever to the events of today.
No one can predict the outcome of today's events so by definition they are irrational. I would bet that no good would come out of this to anyone.
I live in Paris and was spending the night in the middle of the hot zone. I was a few hundred meters from the Bataclan but fortunately the area I was in was spared. I tried to get a Uber but they were unavailable, "State of emergency, please stay home", the app said. I took a city bike home, rode about 10kms and barely saw anyone in the streets all the way home. It was really, really weird. I'm awfully sad that peopl…
If we didn't need to secure their oil by supporting/deposing despots in the region, and didn't want to provide the Israelis with military/political/financial support then we would not be dealing with any of this carnage. Their attempts to fight back will only escalate the situation, and the carnage will continue. Edit: I'm not advocating that we not support Israel. I'm simply stating a hard truth regarding "why they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maaaaaaaybe wait until the bodies have cooled before you start searching for a way to blame the Jews? :(
Israel = nation state. Jews = ethno-religious group. Completely different.