London Bridge Atrocity

[jakswan]

As opposed to the party that has been in govt for the last 7 years, and the person who has been Home Secretary and PM in that time. Obviously what we have to vote for is more of that.

Yes expect Corbyn to be complaining about the shoot to kill policy used, what will his policy be, light a few candles and try to hold hands?

[Nearly Sane]

If I drive my car and hit someone without intending to hurt them, then that is an accident, my intent defines if it is an accident, my driving the car is not an accident.

Choose any word you like, do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and bombing IS in Syria?

And again you aren't driving your car with intent to kill which you ate with bombing. Was there a reason why you repeated the analogy which I had already pointed out to be fallacious?


I note that you are poisoning the well to say that the bombing is only against US as if bombs as not relatively  indiscriminant. Also it isn't clear that we are bombing IS in Syria, when we had the debate in Parliament we seemed to be going after the govt who ate not US. We seemed to think that we would get help from people who might on occasion support IS, so your dichotomy seems factually incorrect.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes expect Corbyn to be complaining about the shoot to kill policy used, what will his policy be, light a few candles and try to hold hands?

Unlikely but then you want to vote for the party under whose govt this has happened. Now I don't think that it is an easy problem to solve but it seems odd of you to argue against Corbyn's policy , and indeed make it up, but then you seem to think this should be stopped but support the govt who have been in power while it happened. Doesn't seem logical to me.

[jakswan]

And again you aren't driving your car with intent to kill which you ate with bombing. Was there a reason why you repeated the analogy which I had already pointed out to be fallacious?

Yes because it is not fallacious, the action is irrelevant if something is an accident it is dictated by the intent. You make words up if you want I'll use the dictionary if that is ok with you.

I note that you are poisoning the well to say that the bombing is only against US as if bombs as not relatively  indiscriminant. Also it isn't clear that we are bombing IS in Syria, when we had the debate in Parliament we seemed to be going after the govt who ate not US. We seemed to think that we would get help from people who might on occasion support IS, so your dichotomy seems factually incorrect.

Waffle in an attempt to evade the question, I'll try again.

Do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and the UK dropping bombs in Syria?

[jakswan]

Unlikely but then you want to vote for the party under whose govt this has happened. Now I don't think that it is an easy problem to solve but it seems odd of you to argue against Corbyn's policy , and indeed make it up, but then you seem to think this should be stopped but support the govt who have been in power while it happened. Doesn't seem logical to me.

I blame the terrorists for what has happened not the UK government. If you want to blame what happened on the bombs in Syria why are you supporting a party whose members voted for that action?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I know that area' and Borough Market. It is popular with young people, because it is multicultural, and affordable. Many there are not British, they are Europeans, Antipodean, and Hispanic/Lationo. Beyond that, words fail me at this time.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes because it is not fallacious, the action is irrelevant if something is an accident it is dictated by the intent. You make words up if you want I'll use the dictionary if that is ok with you.

Since I was arguing that the intent is what us important and the intent if bombing is not the same as driving a car (when you aren't using the car to deliberately kill) then you make my point that your analogy was fallacious for me.

Waffle in an attempt to evade the question, I'll try again.

Do you see moral equivalence between London terror attacks and the UK dropping bombs in Syria?

No, I pointed out why it was an invalid question. I would be obliged f you disagreed with what I said that you dealt with that rather than make a personal attack.


I think both the terror attacks and the bombings are morally wrong. As already stated I don't want to stop killing innocents because it will stop terrorist attacks, nor do I see them as justifying the murderous attacks.  I think the terrorist attacks re on a scale of badness 'worse' but not sure of what import that is.

[Nearly Sane]

I blame the terrorists for what has happened not the UK government. If you want to blame what happened on the bombs in Syria why are you supporting a party whose members voted for that action?

Since I don't blame the UK govt either that's a strawman. Since I am not supporting the Labour party that is a second strawman.

The point being made is that it makes no sense to Blane Corbyn for what has happened by linking the policies that people made up for him on this thread to what happened. If you think that current policy isn't working, however, it would make no sense to vote for the continuation of that policy.

[john]

The German Govt opposed western action in Syria and took no part in wars in Afghanistan, it threw open it's doors to Muslim refugees yet it too has been subject to terrorist attack.

It seems the attacks occur because of hatred of western values rather than being in response to anything in particular.

They do not like girls being educated, laws being made by vote rather than by gods will. Most of all they hate those who do not share their beliefs.

So seeking to blame any particular govt for this situation is ridiculous.

[Nearly Sane]

The German Govt opposed western action in Syria and took no part in wars in Afghanistan, it threw open it's doors to Muslim refugees yet it too has been subject to terrorist attack.

It seems the attacks occur because of hatred of western values rather than being in response to anything in particular.

They do not like girls being educated, laws being made by vote rather than by gods will. Most of all they hate those who do not share their beliefs.

So seeking to blame any particular govt for this situation is ridiculous.

The point is that you seemed to somehow be blaming Corbyn who hasn't been in govt for having in your view the wrong policies to deal with this. Note thinking that  a party or a govt has or has had the wrong policies to deal with this, is not blaming them for it.

[jakswan]

Since I was arguing that the intent is what us important and the intent if bombing is not the same as driving a car (when you aren't using the car to deliberately kill) then you make my point that your analogy was fallacious for me.

The intent is not kill innocent civilians, the intent of terrorism is to kill innocent civilians. I could kill an innocent civilian driving a car if I did so that would be an accident, the UK could kill innocent civilians dropping bombs also an accident. 

No, I pointed out why it was an invalid question. I would be obliged f you disagreed with what I said that you dealt with that rather than make a personal attack.

I rephrased the question.

I think both the terror attacks and the bombings are morally wrong. As already stated I don't want to stop killing innocents because it will stop terrorist attacks, nor do I see them as justifying the murderous attacks.  I think the terrorist attacks re on a scale of badness 'worse' but not sure of what import that is.

Thank you for clarifying, I think its important because some justify terrorism as a result of military action.

For what it is worth I do think we should not be getting involved in the Middle East militarily. The only party that actually consistently holds that view I think is UKIP which is a yucky thought.

[jakswan]

Since I don't blame the UK govt either that's a strawman. Since I am not supporting the Labour party that is a second strawman.

I never claimed you blame the government, so that is a lie. You are supporting Labour by defending Corbyn so that is a second lie.

The point being made is that it makes no sense to Blane Corbyn for what has happened by linking the policies that people made up for him on this thread to what happened. If you think that current policy isn't working, however, it would make no sense to vote for the continuation of that policy.

I do not blame Corbyn for what happened another lie. The policy has worked but is not working now, the Tories are promising a review of that policy.

[Nearly Sane]

The intent is not kill innocent civilians, the intent of terrorism is to kill innocent civilians. I could kill an innocent civilian driving a car if I did so that would be an accident, the UK could kill innocent civilians dropping bombs also an accident. 

I rephrased the question.

Thank you for clarifying, I think its important because some justify terrorism as a result of military action.

For what it is worth I do think we should not be getting involved in the Middle East militarily. The only party that actually consistently holds that view I think is UKIP which is a yucky thought.

It's still a fallacious comparison. We know that the use of bombs will kill innocents, we choose to do it. You have already accepted it's a moral wring, if you think it's equivalent to driving a car, then you would think driving a car is a moral wrong. Do you?


I think intervention extends beyond bombing, ergo the mention of arms sales. We have a tendency, and I have said before, to support in various ways those who we see as our enemy's enemy. It seems misguided given experience.

[Nearly Sane]

I never claimed you blame the government, so that is a lie. You are supporting Labour by defending Corbyn so that is a second lie.

I do not blame Corbyn for what happened another lie. The policy has worked but is not working now, the Tories are promising a review of that policy.

It doesn't matter if you did say I blame the Tory govt or support Corbyn for it to be a strawman. No one has argued it, so it's a strawman. I will accept your apology for calling me a liar when you have calmed down enough to understand that.


I also didn't say you blame Corbyn but he would appear to me to be blamed on here by others. Again I  will accept your apology for calling me a liar when you have calmed down. You need need not to personalise this so much.

Anyway au revoir and to the pub

[jakswan]

It's still a fallacious comparison. We know that the use of bombs will kill innocents, we choose to do it. You have already accepted it's a moral wring, if you think it's equivalent to driving a car, then you would think driving a car is a moral wrong. Do you?

I don't think it's equivalent, strawman. They are both accidents.

[Rhiannon]

It's a great part of London. Impressed by how swiftly the police responded.

[floo]

My thoughts are with all those affected by this latest atrocity. Praise must also be given to the people who tried to help the victims, and those who confronted the terrorists.

[Sassy]

It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.

[Anchorman]

My thoughts with those inLondon - and Cairo - And Kabul - and Syria - and Pakistan - and Bangladesh - all of whom suffered terrorist attacks this week. Man's inhumanity to man knows no borders.

[floo]

It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.

Who are you thinking of banning?

[torridon]

It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.

Perhaps we ought to ban people from getting radicalised, that should sort it.

[Bubbles]

I've just had a discussion online I'll post it in the Muslim section

[Gordon]

Moderator:
 
There was a thread on this in the Muslim Board (Wonder What Else We Have In The UK?) which has been wholly merged into this one since the posts there mostly involved the wider aspects of this event.

[Robbie]

It should not be happening.... If they were not here in the first place it could not happen. Ban them from travelling anywhere in the world.

Who is "they" and "them"?
I haven't read much about the latest terrorist attacksbut are the perpetrators from somewhere other than UK and do we want a UK comprising of WASPs?

I too know the area where this happened though a long time since I worked there. Like it too, Borough Market is great. My sister works at  and one nephew is at Guy's. Neither of' 'them' talking about "they' and "them".

[Harrowby Hall]

Who is "they" and "them"?
I haven't read much about the latest terrorist attacks but are the perpetrators from somewhere other than UK and do we want a UK comprising of WASPs?

I too know the area where this happened though a long time since I worked there. Like it too, Borough Market is great. My sister works at  and one nephew is at Guy's. Neither of' 'them' talking about "they' and "them".

Sassy is an avowed Christian and never misses an opportunity to tell us so.  She can quote-mine the Old Testament with consummate ease to prove even the most minuscule point. She is clearly a very caring individual, but she does seem to miss the central point of the parable of the good Samaritan.