26
   

Terrorist attack in London

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 07:44 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
izzythepush wrote:
I hope the farmer comes home early and catches him in the sty, then he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Explain WHAT??

It might be some sort of idiom. Presumably I would have been caught doing some sort of uninvited and/or illicit activity on his property?


OmSigDAVID wrote:
Oralloy expresses benevolence & magnanimity toward McTag n those he cares about -- not toward ME.

For the record I extend those well wishes to you and all the other good guys.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
Will u explain the problem to me ?

While I extended my well wishes to McTag, I did not extend those same well wishes to some appalling vermin who are the blackest of evil.

They apparently noted that my well wishes did not extend to every single person, and were commenting on that absence. Their characterizing the matter as being one of "disagreement" was linguistically inaccurate though.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 08:35 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I'll let the EDL tell you what they stand for in their own words.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYd9qbRz2fc[/youtube]
I surmise that he was referring to Moslems
trying to legally subject England to the Sharia law.

By what reasoning to u deem him to be "far right" ?





David



izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 01:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It's just you and some fellow travellers who equates freedom with owning a gun. Guns don't make you any freer, and should the government really decide to crack down on you they wouldn't make any difference at all.

As has been pointed out previously calling someone 'anti-freedom,' may play well with the home crowd, but it's just a piece of meaningless rhetoric that actually weakens your argument.

EDL, like all far right movements needs a hate figure, today it's the Moslem, in 1930s Germany it was the Jew.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:16 am
@izzythepush,
So sorry about this awful event, Izzie.

I know you guys are big with the grace under pressure and long familiar with IRA terrorism and all....still.

Sad thing is I also understand the terrorists' frustration.

Just such a sad ferking mess.

I am so sad for the poor soldier's loved ones.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:42 am
@dlowan,
It is very shocking, the victim leaves a widow and a two year old son. He was a regimental drummer, a role that goes back to the Napoleonic wars and is normally given to the brightest and best.

Woolwich is no stranger to terrorism, the IRA bombed a pub there back in the 70s. In many ways Al Qaida's tactics of targeting soldiers is quite similar to the IRA's, but a lot less sophisticated. The IRA would target soldiers in pubs, and attack when they were on their own and a bit worse for drink.

These two killers look like they thought they were heading for martyrdom, they'll have plenty of time to consider their actions in prison, they will face tariffs of at least 30 years and even then they're unlikely to be parolled. They'll most likely grow old and die in prison.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I surmise that he was referring to Moslems
trying to legally subject England to the Sharia law.


Which, despite the paranoid howling of right wing nutters, will never ever happen.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:19 am
@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I surmise that he was referring to Moslems
trying to legally subject England to the Sharia law.
izzythepush wrote:
Which, despite the paranoid howling of right wing nutters, will never ever happen.
I imagine that u r correct; I hope that u r.

Will u tell me what "far right" means, within an English context ?

In America, it means strict n faithful adherence to the US Constitution,
as distinct from liberal distortion thereof.





David
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Far right usually refers to Nazis and Fascists.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In America, it means strict n faithful adherence to the US Constitution, as distinct from liberal distortion thereof.


You peddle the most egregious bullshit. Conservatives adhere to as much of the constitution as they approve of, and not an iota more.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:58 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
It's just you and some fellow travellers who equates freedom with owning a gun.
Guns don't make you any freer, and should the government really decide to crack
down on you they wouldn't make any difference at all.
Lemme see; I believe that the Armed Forces of the US r some 3,000,000 guys.
The population of America exceeds 3OO,OOO,OOO.
It is your opinion that having that many well armed militiamen
is of no consequence whatsoever, right ??




izzythepush wrote:
As has been pointed out previously calling someone 'anti-freedom,'
may play well with the home crowd, but it's just a piece of
meaningless rhetoric that actually weakens your argument.
No, Izzy; its a factual description, to wit:
intimidating the population away from exercising the freedom
of carrying defensive guns, by legal threats (of incarceration, and loss of licensure).
In America, gun controllers hate the fact that we have that freedom.
Thay wish that the Founders had forgotten to put that into the Bill of Rights.




izzythepush wrote:
EDL, like all far right movements needs a hate figure,
If your accountant is 1OO% accurate in the performance of his duties,
then he is orthodox and perfectly conservative (i.e., "far right")
in applying the skills and tenets of his profession, with NO deviation.
The absence of deviation makes him conservative of the rules of accounting (a debit for @ credit, etc.).

According to Izzy, the accountant must hate a figure ????
( I don't think he does.)

The concept of left n right began in France, during the Capetian Dynasty,
in that conservative legislators (who fully supported the King) sat on the right
and his democratic opponents (who deviated from the doctrine of monarchy) sat on the left.



izzythepush wrote:
today it's the Moslem,
It wud not be the Moslem today, if thay had not blown up American real estate on 9/11/1.





izzythepush wrote:
in 1930s Germany it was the Jew.
If the Nazis were "far right",
then please explain from WHAT it was that thay did not deviate????
Please explain your nomenclature.





David
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David, far right means the Nazis and their ilk, I don't need to explain the nomenclature, it's common currency.

Your interpretation of freedom is not a factual description it's your opinion. Actually the insistence on equating guns with freedom is a very regressive way of thinking, an 18th Century mindset. The fact that those on A2K with the most primitive ways of thinking concur with you shows how outdated your concept is. You have H2OMan who is only capable of cutting and pasting other's thoughts, Gungasnake who is so scared of reasoning that he constantly churns out ridiculous dogma devoid of any thinking whatsoever. Then there's BillRM and Oralboy with extremely limited vocabularies, an inability to see things in anything other than extremes, and the slobbering prose of a lesser primate.

You're not advocating freedom, but atavism.

One of the main aspects of freedom is to be able to choose our own definition, without having a third party trying to impose their definition on us. If you were to ask for a piece of cake you wouldn't be happy if I gave you something else, then told you that what you'd asked for wasn't cake at all. You'd be even less happy if I then labelled you as a cake hater, because you wouldn't accept my definition of cake.

OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:03 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
David, far right means the Nazis and their ilk,
I don't need to explain the nomenclature, it's common currency.
Agreed that u don't need
to answer questions addressed to u in the forum.
Agreed that it is "common currency" but its logic
is not functional; I was bringing out that point.

( Y call it "right"?? Y not call it yellowish, or downward, or northeasterly, or Sylvester?? Y "right" ?? )





izzythepush wrote:
Your interpretation of freedom is not a factual description it's your opinion.
No, Izzy, I was pointing out a SPECIFIC FREEDOM
in controversy, i.e., the freedom to legally carry defensive guns in public places.
Do u see my point ??
The question was whether the power of government
shud be brought to bear against the exercise of that particular freedom,
or whether that freedom is BEYOND the jurisdictional reach of government.
(That was the reason that we put it into the Bill of Rights; to disable governmental interference.)





izzythepush wrote:
Actually the insistence on equating guns with freedom
is a very regressive way of thinking, an 18th Century mindset.
U say that, like its a BAD thing; I envy the freedom of earlier times.





izzythepush wrote:
The fact that those on A2K with the most primitive ways of thinking
concur with you shows how outdated your concept is.
My concept is 1OO% fidelity
to the US Constitution, with its consequent crippling
of government jurisdiction (37 different ways in the Bill of Rights, alone).

The Constitution does not wear out (ever)
and it endures until amended, as per its Article 5.







izzythepush wrote:
You have H2OMan who is only capable of cutting and pasting other's thoughts, Gungasnake who is so scared of reasoning that he constantly churns out ridiculous dogma devoid of any thinking whatsoever. Then there's BillRM and Oralboy with extremely limited vocabularies, an inability to see things in anything other than extremes, and the slobbering prose of a lesser primate.
I surmise that u r tacitly inviting me to stipulate
to your ad hominem invective; I do not accept that invitation.

I strive to be correct, not to be hypocritical;
to be correct, not to be popular.






izzythepush wrote:
You're not advocating freedom, but atavism.
In earlier times, there was more personal freedom.
I want it back; yes to atavistic liberation !






izzythepush wrote:
One of the main aspects of freedom is to be able to choose our own definition, without having a third party trying to impose their definition on us. If you were to ask for a piece of cake you wouldn't be happy if I gave you something else, then told you that what you'd asked for wasn't cake at all.
You'd be even less happy if I then labelled you as a cake hater, because you wouldn't accept my definition of cake.
There is nothing rong with asking anyone to DEFINE his terms.
( That is what I did to u.)


Let 's not lose sight of the fact
that the relationship between government
and the citizen is ADVERSARIAL; i.e., we need
to think of government as being the bad guy.




David
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:45 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Your constitution is an 18th Century document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning aristocrats. You may think 100% fidelity to such a document is a good thing, others would say you're being anachronistic.

I prefer the freedom of knowing that my neighbours don't have guns, especially after they've been drinking.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:03 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your constitution is an 18th Century document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning aristocrats.
The ONLY legitimacy of government in America
is its Constitution. Without that, it has no better authority
than the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club or a schoolyard bully.
It is and it remains the Supreme Law of the Land.
By its 13th Amendment, slavery was abolished.




izzythepush wrote:
You may think 100% fidelity to such a document is a good thing, others would say you're being anachronistic.
It remains FULLY VALID and has my loving support,
regardless of whether it is anachronistic or not.






izzythepush wrote:
I prefer the freedom of knowing that my neighbours don't have guns,
especially after they've been drinking.
Thay WILL have guns, if thay choose to have them
(assuming that thay r intelligent enuf to either make them
[as the old English gunsmiths did long b4 the advent of electricity]
or buy them on the Black Market.)
Thay can make fully automatic weapons from extant blueprints
and directions (see Paladin Press, which sold me the directional manual
for building a submachinegun).

Human ingenuity trumps the power of government.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I strive to be correct, not to be hypocritical;
to be correct, not to be popular.


Considering that you are supposed to be a lawyer, and a bit of a bright guy, you fail miserably, Sig.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:49 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
Sad thing is I also understand the terrorists' frustration
.

From that comment the only conclusion I can come to is that you are an idiot along with the people who voted up your posting.

Poor terrorists living in nations where they have more freedoms by far then any in their "homelands" and the right to try to change their governments actions by peaceful means but think that killing innocent people on the public streets is the way to go.

Both Boston bombers came here and they and their family accepted all kinds of benefits given to them by the American society.

Both brothers apply for US citizenships and the one surviving brother accept it after taking the following oath of his own free will.

Somehow that oath seems off hand to foreclosed the random killings/harming of his fellow citizens in order to make a political point

Quote:
I hereby declare, on oath,

•that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

•that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

•that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

•that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

•that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

•that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

•and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.






0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:50 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your constitution is an 18th Century document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning aristocrats. You may think 100% fidelity to such a document is a good thing, others would say you're being anachronistic.

I prefer the freedom of knowing that my neighbours don't have guns, especially after they've been drinking.
Uhh... Errr.. Isn't your government a monarchy, noted, in particular, for having attempted to subjugate the entire world?

1 When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

2 The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

3 Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

4 Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

5 To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

6 The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crown'd,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."
(Lyrics from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule,_Britannia!)

Not that I think it's wrong, or anything. . . We have the Monroe Doctrine. . .
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:11 am
@neologist,
Here is an example of how Englishmen felt about non-white people as late as 1899.

Quote:
The White Man's Burden
1899

THE UNITED STATES AND THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Take up the White man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden --
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden --
The savage wars of peace --
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden --
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper --
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden --
Ye dare not stoop to less --
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden --
Have done with childish days --
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:33 am
@neologist,
Is this not a sidetrack, Neo?
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:47 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Here is an example of how Englishmen felt about non-white people as late as 1899. (quotes that Kipling poem)


As "late" as 1899? Are you for real? Read up about the Hola Camp business in Kenya in the 1950s, and the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder case, if you want to see some "late" examples of how some "Englishmen" felt about non-white people. Worth bearing in mind, Mr Glib Generalizer, that during his career many "Englishmen" detested Kipling and the attitudes expressed in that poem. That is not to say that Merrow Down is not a fine poem.
 

Related Topics

Report: CIA foiled al-Qaida plot - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Happy New Year from Pakistan - Discussion by djjd62
ISIS or Daesh - Question by usmankhalid665
Nothing about Brussels? - Discussion by McGentrix
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 03:26:35