Shooting at Parliament

PiperCub

You are being very offensive. Please refrain from this.

Stuey1

All very emotive but still nothing of substance... When our government is making any decisions they should be aware of any side effects of the decisions they take regardless of the subject.

The only thing the poster is being guilty of is being realistic and acknowledging that any action has a reaction, and we can actually only minimise the risks to a certain extent while keeping our democracy and not turning into a new north korea.

I'll ask again as you still haven't proposed any solutions that would eliminate the risk of terrorism completely, whats your solution?

As an analogy, what he is saying that if you poke a bear with a big stick, you can't expect the bear is going to have your morals and not try to attack you - the bear maybe doesn't understand your way of thinking and will do what it see's fit

krish

When will you refrain from your disgusting comments on another member who has clearly departed the conversation?

PiperCub

There is nothing in your reply to debate the issues I raised.

Yes the decisions they make are a seperate issue to whether I can go and mow people down in a street.

He can't say we should accept the risks, or our government should, that's getting into propagating hate speak because it's saying terrorism is ok.

Frankly we can reduce the risk much more and we see why people want that to happen, quite rightly, following more terrorist attacks.

Stuey1

That's entirely the point, the poster is suggesting they aren't entirely separate - ever heard of cause and effect?

Nowhere has he condoned what happened, he has purely suggested that there are reasons that this has become more prevalent in recent history

Seriously, I don't get the logic you are using to get to this position...

How? Come on give us examples, how do you stop a random person getting in a car and driving down the pavement without banning cars?

You're posts are getting even more bizarre each time

PiperCub

You seem to be the one too who has these poor views but don't wish to debate, presumably hiding under the cloak of keeping your poor view in anonymity. The comments of excusing terrorism being our citizens or governments fault and not being the fault of the terrorist, are the very reasons this happened yesterday.

Bl4ckGryph0n

To me having wild unfounded theories and armchair suggestions as to what people should and shouldn't do in such a situation does not constitute good debate at all. I'm afraid to say that I agree with Krish and think it is funny. Now if there was a dislike button I'd use that instead as actually it isn't funny other than in a weird perverse manner in my opinion.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Nobody has done so in this thread....

Stuey1

Again, more irrationality

No-one has said yesterday wasn't the fault of the terrorist - it quite blatantly was the result of him being an absolute nutter and potentially having been brainwashed into an abhorrent ideology.

That, however is interlinked with the rise of that ideology, which was the subject of the initial claim that our foreign policy could have had some effect on the spread of such an ideology

PiperCub

Rule of law is seperate to the decisions our government takes. You are confusing and conflating. It doesn't entitle people to mow people down. He is apologising for it being really nothing other than the fault of the perpetrator. Absolutely nothing else. If someone kills someone they are responsible, not Islamic state interfearance, or policy decisions. If you then try to say it's not that persons fault, you are deflecting responsibility off them. If you do that you play into terrorists hands to perpetuate an ideal it's not about personal responsibility. Surely you can see that.

I'm not the security services, they have the role of working out our security, and I entrust that to them in a democracy, as does our society.

There is nothing bizarre about this thinking at all.