Manchester Terrorist Attack!

Liverpoolphil said:
How many Jihad nutters killed Brits in the U.K. Before the wars in Iraq , Syria , Afghan , Libya ?

The US have been involved in the Middle East for years hence Jihad nutters have attacked them
Click to expand...

Nice to know you are only interested in UK victims of terror. And before you jump on google tell me where US the overt operations where in the middle east prior to the first attack on their soil which was in 1993 or are you going to suggest that the majority of the countries that fought to free Kuwait were wrong.

As you are someone who in early posts seem to suggest that these problems are due to the wests actions abroad I find it was a bit hypocritical of you to keenly take the queens shilling and take part in these actions.

Popcorn anyone
 
Old Skier said:
Nice to know you are only interested in UK victims of terror. And before you jump on google tell me where US the overt operations where in the middle east prior to the first attack on their soil which was in 1993 or are you going to suggest that the majority of the countries that fought to free Kuwait were wrong.

As you are someone who in early posts seem to suggest that these problems are due to the wests actions abroad I find it was a bit hypocritical of you to keenly take the queens shilling and take part in these actions.

Popcorn anyone
Click to expand...

That's quite a pathetic post even from you.
 
Old Skier said:
Not quite able to sink to your level yet. I take it you disagree, or have no answer to facts.
Click to expand...

You didn't provide any facts - you not for the first made assumptions and insulting remarks aimed towards my years off service. You're are not worth the effort to reply anymore
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liverpoolphil said:
You didn't provide any facts - you not for the first made assumptions and insulting remarks aimed towards my years off service. You're are not worth the effort to replay anymore
Click to expand...

Then as normal you choose not to read the original post and I have never remark on your prior service and in an open forum wouldnt, apart from being in the RAF I don't have a clue what your trade was.
 
Papas1982 said:
An accident should not be judged the same as an act of intent.
Click to expand...

I see little difference for you or I. We do what we can. The authorities do all they can to endure aircraft are airworthy and so minimise the risk to the public; the authorities do all they can to monitor and deal with those who might do us harm - and to minimise the risk to the public.
 
Junior said:
Both are tragedies in their own right, and the pain the families feel are not lessened in any way. I don't know the specifics of what happened on the M6 (was a car speeding ? was someone on their mobile phone ?) but to strip it back to that level and compare what was effectively an tragic accident to a cold, calculated act of terrorism (murder) is ridiculous, wrong and disrespectful to those involved in the atrocities this week.

We have to separate the terms 'terrorists' and 'muslim'. We must treat these wasters as humans and punish them with the laws of our land, and the laws need strengthening. We need to give our authorities the resources to investigate and PREVENT these acts of terrorism. As I said previously, 8 people are now being detained in relation to the attack, and, the attacker was already known to be associated with terrorism. What do they know now that they didn't know last week ????? Whatever powers we need to give the authorities to pro-actively act as opposed to reactively act, need to be given. I'm not saying detention without cause, but something stronger that we do not have today needs to be in place.

A final point on separating muslims from terrorism. There are muslims who contribute to our society and communities in multiple capacities. it upsets me to think that muslim children in schools might be bullied because of the events that occurred this week. These fanatics are a minority, and every muslim friend I have or work with condemn these attacks as we do.
Click to expand...

I am simply considering our reaction to the events. By the sounds of it the passengers in the car were completely blameless - innocent victims - as of course were those who died on Monday night. And of course there are things that the authorities could do to reduce the risk of multiple fatalities from such accidents. But even though we are part of the community (drivers) from which the lorry driver comes - we would not expect to be treated as if we are all capable of being so involved, and would not be at all happy if, such as, the motorway speed limits were reduced to 50mph.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I see little difference for you or I. We do what we can. The authorities do all they can to endure aircraft are airworthy and so minimise the risk to the public; the authorities do all they can to monitor and deal with those who might do us harm - and to minimise the risk to the public.
Click to expand...

The debate we were going down was on the outrage and pain they can cause.

Neither are are likely to never happen. BUT one is my pure bad luck. The other evil planning.

If you genuinely believe an accident is as unfortunate as being murdered then that's your prerogative. As someone who's been effected by both. I know which i still feel anger about.
 
Papas1982 said:
The debate we were going down was on the outrage and pain they can cause.

Neither are are likely to never happen. BUT one is my pure bad luck. The other evil planning.

If you genuinely believe an accident is as unfortunate as being murdered then that's your prerogative. As someone who's been effected by both. I know which i still feel anger about.
Click to expand...

Something is either unfortunate or it isn't. Accidents and being murdered are both clearly unfortunate.

It would make the most sense to save the most lives we can, right? So the speeding analogy stands.
 
Kellfire said:
Something is either unfortunate or it isn't. Accidents and being murdered are both clearly unfortunate.

It would make the most sense to save the most lives we can, right? So the speeding analogy stands.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on perspective. An 'unfortunate accident' and an 'unfortunate murder' are certainly not the same in my mind. One is pre meditated, the other is not.

I see what your saying regarding ratio but it does not sit well in this analogy because there is pre-meditation in one act, not the other. Someone is consciously trying to murder someone.
Also, Irrespective of the speed limit, if a driver wants to do 90, they will. Whether the limit is 40, 50 or 70.
 
We could be so outraged by the fact that 5 innocent people died in a high speed crash that we demand action - that we demand that lorries can only drive at night and in the inside lane; and/or reduce the speed limit for all vehicles to 50mph or indeed less.

We know that these measures would reduce the likelihood of such an accident ever happening again, but we do not demand them. Why not? I would guess because we know that they would impact our own lives directly, and whilst we can accept a bit of change - that would be too much.

And whilst we demand action to be taken we do not want that action to cause too much inconvenience to ourselves, so indeed I suspect that more of us might support a ban on lorries on motorways during the day than might support a reduction in the speed limit.

So to the matter of Monday. Many seem happen to impose maximum inconvenience, disruption and heartache on others - as long as they themselves aren't overly affected.

Just how I read it.
 
Junior said:
I guess it depends on perspective. An 'unfortunate accident' and an 'unfortunate murder' are certainly not the same in my mind. One is pre meditated, the other is not.

I see what your saying regarding ratio but it does not sit well in this analogy because there is pre-meditation in one act, not the other. Someone is consciously trying to murder someone.
Also, Irrespective of the speed limit, if a driver wants to do 90, they will. Whether the limit is 40, 50 or 70.
Click to expand...

Yes - but there are ways - so if cars have speed limiters or if the penalty is an immediate ban. But yes, I don't want to stretch the analogy too far.

It is our reaction to one event compared with our reaction to the other that I am curious about. With one, some here demand changes to our laws that would go against some of our basic values and what has made the country great - the other? Nothing - silence.
 
Last edited:
Doing 70mph on a motorway doesn't cause accidents.

Driving faster than 70mph, not paying attention, driving too close to the car in front etc cause accidents.

The motorway analogy is akin to suggesting banning pop concerts.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Yes - but there are ways - so if cars have speed limiters or if the penalty is an immediate ban. But yes, I don't want to stretch the analogy too far.

It is our reaction to one event compared with our reaction to the other that I am curious about. With one, some here demand changes to our laws that would go against some of our basic values and what has made the country great - the other? Nothing - silence.
Click to expand...

Your trying to compare peoples outrage levels between an accident and cold blooded murder. Whilst they may be the same to you. To most they are not.

If a a small child walks in front of a car doing 10mph they are in trouble. The speed limit of 70 is t what results in accidents. The very definition of an accident is an unfortunate event that cannot be predicted. If it happens through wreck less driving then the person at fault should be dealt with.

But wholst it would hypocritical of me to say I've never sped in a Vehicle. To my mind, there is a clear distinction between driving a few miles over the limit and beliving you are in control, and strapping a bomb to yourself and setting it off with children close by.
 
Papas1982 said:
Your trying to compare peoples outrage levels between an accident and cold blooded murder. Whilst they may be the same to you. To most they are not.

If a a small child walks in front of a car doing 10mph they are in trouble. The speed limit of 70 is t what results in accidents. The very definition of an accident is an unfortunate event that cannot be predicted. If it happens through wreck less driving then the person at fault should be dealt with.

But wholst it would hypocritical of me to say I've never sped in a Vehicle. To my mind, there is a clear distinction between driving a few miles over the limit and beliving you are in control, and strapping a bomb to yourself and setting it off with children close by.
Click to expand...

The events are very, very different - for individuals, the outcome is the same. Why do we express absolutely no outrage with one - and an outrage at the other that some would have us changing some of our basic values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rudebhoy
The Hole-in-One Gang: How Golf Bettors Beat The Bookies
Replies
8
Views
4K
abjectplop
A
F
Two Killed and Chaos on M26
Replies
12
Views
2K
Blue in Munich
Blue in Munich
Top