26
   

Terrorist attack in London

 
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:54 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Uhh... Errr.. Isn't your government a monarchy, noted, in particular, for having attempted to subjugate the entire world?


That's ancient history though, Neo. But isn't it exceedingly strange that the UK was known for that but the USA, much much much worse in terms of reach and level of brutality isn't known for that?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:59 pm
I am still in somewhat in a state of shock that the UK lawmakers/MPs will not allow their women to have even the mild protections of such things as small containers of pepper spray.

Perhaps their UK tourist board should try to find places to place advs over the world for men who might enjoy vacationing in a nation where when sexually assaulting women they do not even need to worry over getting a face full of pepper spray.

They do at the moment allow their women to carry some kind of rape alarm device but I can see how that might be ban in the future as we can not chance the poor rapists hearing being harm after all.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:05 pm
@JTT,
Be fair. I didn't overlook the Monroe Doctrine and its continuing influence.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:15 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Conservatives attempt to cherry pick all the time. The most recent, glaring example is the attempt to, again and again, introduce religion into the public sphere, despite the no establishment clause of the first amendment, ratified in 1791.
Government was not created in America to foster nor promote religion.
The Constitution does not authorize the promulgation of religion, nor the repression thereof.
Accordingly, any person who uses government for religious
purposes DEVIATES from the Constitution, thus becoming a liberal,
like a fanatical supporter of AA who goes out on a drinking binge.







Setanta wrote:
You people also sedulously ignore the first clause of the second amendment,
That is not true, Setanta.
I regcognize the rights of the citizens to organize themselves
into private militia, if so thay choose (tho I, myself, have been too lazy to do so).
"Well regulated militia" must be distinguished from "selected militia"
in that the latter (the fellows described in Article I Section 8
subsections 15 n 16) r obviously government sponsored ("selected militia"),
un-like the militia of the 2nd Amendment, who r private fellows,
the guys in the naborhood -- like a volunteer library.
Remember: there were NO POLICE in the USA, in the 17OOs,
so everyone was expected to take care of himself,
in defense from animals or street criminals.
Sometimes, thay grouped together to accomplish that purpose.


I 've gotta go now; dinner beckons.
I 'll address the rest of your post later.




Setanta wrote:
and the power over the militia granted to Congress in Article I, Section Eight which clearly gives the Congress the right to regulate Firearms. This principle was upheld in The United States versus Miller, 1939. Conservatives frequently whine about the "coddling" of criminals (despite the principle of innocent until proven guilty), whining about evidence thrown out because of illegal search and seizure (fourth amendment), or convictions overturned because of violations of due process (fifth and fourteenth amendments).

Conservatives cherry pick constitutional provisions all the time.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 06:51 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
I didn't overlook the Monroe Doctrine and its continuing influence.


You didn't really say anything about it, Neo.

Highly misleading name. Should be called "Monroe Justification to Rape and Pillage the Poor Countries of the Western Hemisphere".
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 06:59 pm
@JTT,
I didn't name it
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  12  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:16 pm
I'm assuming that everybody has managed to get past the horror of a lone military man on his hometown street being ambushed by a car and then two British born men of Nigerian dissent proceeded to hack him to death in a bizarre bullshit publicity grab over some Old Testament eye for an eye crapfest over a conflict they have never been involved in. They proclaimed that Muslim women are forced to see brutal acts, really????? Were they talking about British born female citizens who happen to be Muslim? Are they the women they are concerned about being subjected to sights of incredible violence on the streets of London. No I don't think so either.

What happened was an incredibly brutal act of violence perpetrated against a lone, unarmed off duty service member. I don't want to get ugly about this because the horror of this act should be shocking enough for all the bull crappers posting here. For Christ sake, can we just agree this was awful and a young man was targeted and killed only because he was a target of opportunity. Stop trying to make this about the U.S. Constitution, the British Empire or any other unrelated nonsense. One young man gets hacked to death by 2 disturbed men with a warped idea about "honor" and 2 seconds later the rest of you are bitching about all sorts of crap besides the nightmare visited on this young man and his family. Those of you discussing any other bullshit concept should be very disappointed in yourselves. With the possible exception of Om who simply doesn't know better. Really folks, all you can talk about is the 2nd amendment? Strong message to follow!!!!!
glitterbag
 
  8  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:20 pm
I know tons of people are self absorbed, but I have to say comments regarding this murder are really pissing me off. Everybody is sitting in front of their computer spouting nonsense. I am so disappointed with A2K posters, I am apoplectic.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:20 pm
@glitterbag,
Wish I could give you more than just one thumb up on that post.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:28 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I gave you a bit of help.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:40 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Big thanks to roger and merry. I could barely comprehend the direction this thread was taking.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:44 pm
@glitterbag,
No doubt, GB, a real horror for the family of that young man. But really, it pales into insignificance compared to the war crimes committed by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It pales into insignificance compared to the horrors heaped upon those peoples by the US/UK.

It pales into insignificance when compared to any one tiny instance of the incredible evil that the US and the UK have perpetrated upon the people of Afghanistan.

Quote:
They proclaimed that Muslim women are forced to see brutal acts, really?????


Yes, really!!! Throw a dart at the map and you'll likely hit a country where Muslim women are forced to see incredibly brutal acts as their countries and lives are ruined by the US/UK.

You should be mightily ashamed of yourself for helping to advance the horrible lies that the US and UK governments continue to advance.

Really, WTF is wrong with you people. That includes you too, Merry, the grand newspaper man who sits silent in the peanut gallery until he spies a chance to offer us the huge stores of wisdom garnered from an illustrious career as a journalist.

Quote:
10 Years After Invasion, US Depleted Uranium Continues to Devastate Iraq
US persistent refusal to release data hampering efforts to eradicate contamination

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
A radioactive heavy metal found in weapons used by the U.S. military and other forces in the war on Iraq continues to plague the country as hundreds of sites are still contaminated and causing the spread of the radioactive substance, according to a new report by Netherlands peace group IKV Pax Christi.


Air strikes in Baghdad, March 21, 2003 (Reuters/Goran Tomasevic)
Tens years after the invasion, the U.S. has done almost nothing to clean up the toxic legacy of the war and continues to deny the well-documented harms caused by the radioactive residue that remains.

The particular danger posed by depleted uranium (DU)—used in munitions to penetrate hard surfaces such as armored vehicles—was well know prior to the 2003 start of the war. Despite this and ignoring warnings against the continued use of DU munitions, the findings of the report show that both the U.S. and the U.K. used such weapons far more expansively in Iraq—targeting ordinary vehicles and buildings in highly populated civilian areas.

According to the report, In a State of Uncertainty: Impact and implications of the use of depleted uranium in Iraq, the US expended over 400 tonnes of DU ammunition in Iraq, both during the first Gulf War in the early 1990's and the subsequent invasion in 2003. British forces, reportedly, used three tonnes.

Both the U.S. and the U.K. have failed to admit the widely reported adverse health affects of exposure to DU. However, as the report points out:

New and alarming reports of increased cancer rates and birth malformations emerged in the years after the official ending of the hostilities in Iraq, as well as amongst veterans of Coalition forces who were present during and after the fighting; which again pointed to the use of DU as the cause of these health problems.
In response to the report, a UK government spokeswoman told the Guardian, "While UK armed forces have not needed to use DU since 2003, it would be wrong to deny them the potential future use of a legitimate and effective capability."

The US government has consistently denied confirmation of where it had fired DU weapons. The report, however, shows that between 300 and 365 contaminated sites have been reported by 2006, with likely many more.

"It is unclear exactly how many locations may still be contaminated, or the extent of the risks that civilians face," said the report's author, Wim Zwijnenburg.

The report states:

The exposure risks to civilians from the use of DU in populated areas have been compounded by the US’s persistent refusal to release the data that could have helped facilitate effective assessment and clearance work, providing that the Iraqi government had the capacity and finances to undertake it. Taken as a whole, these issues cast serious doubts over the legitimacy of the use of DU.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/06-5


AND

Quote:
Cleaning up more than 300 sites in Iraq still contaminated by depleted uranium (DU) weapons will cost at least $30m, according to a report by a Dutch peace group to be published on Thursday.

The report, which was funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, warns that the contamination is being spread by poorly regulated scrap metal dealers, including children. It also documents evidence that DU munitions were fired at light vehicles, buildings and other civilian infrastructure including the Iraqi Ministry of Planning in Baghdad – casting doubt on official assurances that only armoured vehicles were targeted. "The use of DU in populated areas is alarming," it says, adding that many more contaminated sites are likely to be discovered.

More than 400 tonnes of DU ammunition are estimated to have been fired by jets and tanks in the two Iraq wars in 1991 and 2003, the vast majority by US forces. The UK government says that British forces fired less than three tonnes.

DU is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal produced as waste by the nuclear power industry. It is used in weapons because it is an extremely hard material capable of piercing armour.

However, it can contaminate the environment, and has been linked to health problems in civilian populations. Iraqi doctors have reported increases in cancers, and an alleged rise in birth defects is under investigation by the World Health Organisation and the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/06/iraq-depleted-uranium-clean-up-contamination-spreads
roger
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:20 pm
@glitterbag,
I know. Sometimes you have to check the title to make sure you are on the right thread.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:28 pm
I have JTT on ignore, but decided to see what he had to say. Now I remember why I don't read JTT's stupid ravings. My comment to JTT should be get educated not indoctrinated. Actually don't do anything, your comments are so outrageously warped, they serve as an example of the power of free speech (which few Muslim women enjoy) and your limited ability to think for yourself. I invite you to pound sand, and when you have time, let me know how many members of Western Civilization have to be butchered before you think everything is even stevin?. You sir/mam are an idiot of hateful proportion, a waste of space and an empty suit. I see no daylight between you and a KKK member or other skin head group. You hate for sport, hate doesn't build anything, it is strictly destructive. If you live long enough you will be a bitter old fart, right now you are just a miserable human being. Your views are barbaric and patently stupid. I bet you hate yourself. I stand by my earlier comment, when you think killing strangers to make a political point is OK, you just bought yourself a non-stop one way ticket to hell. Nihilism is your mantra,
good luck with that you pitiable creature. I won't be reading anymore of your hate non-Muslim, love only Muslim crap. You will be back on ignore. Frankly you only have one tune to sing and I've read enough of your **** to last me a lifetime. Shame on you, squared.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:31 pm
I bet JTT is a regular party if you get to know him. I'll pass, I've been to real parties where people actually enjoyed themselves.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Setanta wrote:
Conservatives attempt to cherry pick all the time. The most recent, glaring example is the attempt to, again and again, introduce religion into the public sphere, despite the no establishment clause of the first amendment, ratified in 1791.
Government was not created in America to foster nor promote religion.
The Constitution does not authorize the promulgation of religion, nor the repression thereof.
Accordingly, any person who uses government for religious
purposes DEVIATES from the Constitution, thus becoming a liberal,
like a fanatical supporter of AA who goes out on a drinking binge.







Setanta wrote:
You people also sedulously ignore the first clause of the second amendment,
That is not true, Setanta.
I regcognize the rights of the citizens to organize themselves
into private militia, if so thay choose (tho I, myself, have been too lazy to do so).
"Well regulated militia" must be distinguished from "selected militia"
in that the latter (the fellows described in Article I Section 8
subsections 15 n 16) r obviously government sponsored ("selected militia"),
un-like the militia of the 2nd Amendment, who r private fellows,
the guys in the naborhood -- like a volunteer library.
Remember: there were NO POLICE in the USA, in the 17OOs,
so everyone was expected to take care of himself,
in defense from animals or street criminals.
Sometimes, thay grouped together to accomplish that purpose.


I 've gotta go now; dinner beckons.
I 'll address the rest of your post later.


OK: I 'M BACK.

Setanta wrote:
and the power over the militia granted to Congress in Article I, Section Eight
which clearly gives the Congress the right to regulate Firearms.
No; that is a non-sequitur, except as to government owned guns
that have been issued to the militiamen for use on-the-job.
Your posted remark fails to take proper cognizance of
the distinction between the selected militia of Article I Section 8,
and the "well regulated" (i.e., private) local militia
which sometimes acted in the absence of non-existent
police forces (until well into the next century).





Setanta wrote:
This principle was upheld in The United States versus Miller, 1939.
That case only stood for the proposition that the Bill of Rights protects civilian possession
of LETHAL WEAPONS, not junk; i.e., to qualify for 2nd Amendment protection,
it had to be proven that the instrument in question
cud be of use to a militia in battle, not worthless junk
with that mutilated gunbarrel. The USSC merely
made the point that the MILLER trial court erred in failing
to take expert testimony on the value, the functionality,
of the defendant's shotgun, in that altered condition.

Indeed, that testimony was available in 1939,
because short shotguns had been used as "trench brooms"
in the First World War, but that information did not
find its way onto the record of the trial court; (no expert).

(In my Constitutional orthodoxy, I AGREE with the USSC in MILLER,
that if a weapon has been damaged
to the point that a citizen cannot use it to successfully kill human beings,
then it LOSES 2nd Amendment protection.
The Bill of Rights does not protect a citizen 's possession of useless trash.
It protects the right to possess good weapons.)

During the years n decades since 1939,
many lower courts had screwn up mis-interpretations of the USSC in MILLER.
In 2008, the USSC cleared up those mis-interpretations
of MILLER in D.C. v HELLER 554 U.S. 570 (2008)




Setanta wrote:
Conservatives frequently whine about the "coddling" of criminals
(despite the principle of innocent until proven guilty),
That is not cherry picking; thay have as much right to their opinions ( n to express their opinions )
as u do qua your own.





Setanta wrote:
whining about evidence thrown out because of illegal search and seizure (fourth amendment),
or convictions overturned because of violations of due process (fifth and fourteenth amendments).
I worked for and voted for both
Barry Goldwater n Ronald Reagan, ergo: my conservative credentials.
I agree with finding in favor of defendant for the reasons
that u posted. That is consonant with my Constitutional orthodoxy.

If other people who vote my way in November feel differently,
I can only defer to their freedom of opinion, but that does NOT
follow from the logic of the Constitution; (it does NOT say:
"hay, don't coddle criminals").





Setanta wrote:
Conservatives cherry pick constitutional provisions all the time.
That is not cherry picking,
but people can differ in their favorite parts of the Constitution.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:59 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Big thanks to roger and merry. I could barely comprehend the direction this thread was taking.


I know that it's difficult for you folks to comprehend anything that deviates from that fed to you by the propaganda mill.

It's absolutely amazing, it's outlandish incredulity. You all know full well why this Woolwich incident happened, you know full well why Boston happened and why 9-11 happened. But in all this time I can't recall hearing one person on A2K acknowledging what you all know to be the truth. You're simply a bunch of silent Michelle Malkins.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:02 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I have JTT on ignore, but decided to see what he had to say.


Gee, your honesty in admitting that you're a liar amazes me, GB.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:06 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag:Now I remember why I don't read JTT's stupid ravings. Because they cause me discomforting cognitive dissonance.

I'm sure gonna miss you, Ms Malkin/Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly.




0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 11:08 pm
@glitterbag,
Congratulations, glitterbag. Yet another outstanding example of the world renowned American debating skills.
0 Replies
 
 

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 07/03/2022 at 12:20:23