Terrorist Attacks

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

I actually got the impression watching the BBC the oppposite, almost delight in the reporting that it might be someone from the "far-right".

 

Ironically Facebook was full of people who usually tell us not speculate on things like this anything shouting from the rooftops who it might be.

 

Right. The ideologues on one side are going to be disappointed that this wasn't another event they could blame on the big bad IS boogeyman, and the ones on the other side are going to be satisfied both at the demonstration that right-wing nutters can do horrifying things too and that the other side were wrong.

 

These incidents always get politicised, one way or another.

Edited 23 July 2016 by leicsmac

[Thracian]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Right. The ideologues on one side are going to be disappointed that this wasn't another event they could blame on the big bad IS boogeyman, and the ones on the other side are going to be satisfied both at the demonstration that right-wing nutters can do horrifying things too and that the other side were wrong.

 

These incidents always get politicised, one way or another.

 

Nothing about this incident changes the dangers cultured and born out of misguided liberalism but it does emphasise two things that have been increasingly apparent for some years now and which are all but common denominators in these highly public crimes. 

 

One is the increasing number of wackos we have walking the streets and the second is the negative effect of publicity.

 

Terrorists, people driven to make some parting statement to the world and other wackos all crave publicity and that very publicity only encourages them for all that I can't ever imagine media organisations acknowledging their responsibility and denying themselves the chance to feast on a good story.

 

Both raise the lasting problem of how to deal with the situation especially given that any solution would be countered by those who continue to believe we're all equal,  should all love one another and should all hold hands. 

 

Yet every week the dead bodies mount up and every week the stupidity of such ideas are held up to ridicule with the liberals refusing to admit they're wrong and ingoring the desperate, ongoing hurt to so many victims, their families and their close friends - hurt which sometimes never goes away. It's a pity the rights of those people are not considered first and well before the rights of evil perpetrators.     

 

And they are evil. Having a troubled mind might be a recognisable problem - and one we should try to remedy - but it's no excuse and there's no excuse for those in authority - or the law - sidestepping the responsibity they carry for addressing the situation effectively because, as I've mentioned before and as is emphasised time and again - virtually all these wackos are known to be wackos way before they do something really hideous.

 

Social kindness is all well and good but not at the cost of major social impact on hundreds of others. Seems to me that society largely glosses over the problems because they don't really know what to do for the best and their stupid human rights laws have sorely limited the options anyway. 

 

We're vigorous in trying to deal with shattered limbs and ailing bodies (at least we were once) but seemingly inept in dealing with the massive consequences of malfunctioning minds.   

                 

[Manwell Pablo]

42 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

Nothing about this incident changes the dangers cultured and born out of misguided liberalism but it does emphasise two things that have been increasingly apparent for some years now and which are all but common denominators in these highly public crimes. 

 

One is the increasing number of wackos we have walking the streets and the second is the negative effect of publicity.

 

Terrorists, people driven to make some parting statement to the world and other wackos all crave publicity and that very publicity only encourages them for all that I can't ever imagine media organisations acknowledging their responsibility and denying themselves the chance to feast on a good story.

 

Both raise the lasting problem of how to deal with the situation especially given that any solution would be countered by those who continue to believe we're all equal,  should all love one another and should all hold hands. 

 

Yet every week the dead bodies mount up and every week the stupidity of such ideas are held up to ridicule with the liberals refusing to admit they're wrong and ingoring the desperate, ongoing hurt to so many victims, their families and their close friends - hurt which sometimes never goes away. It's a pity the rights of those people are not considered first and well before the rights of evil perpetrators.     

 

And they are evil. Having a troubled mind might be a recognisable problem - and one we should try to remedy - but it's no excuse and there's no excuse for those in authority - or the law - sidestepping the responsibity they carry for addressing the situation effectively because, as I've mentioned before and as is emphasised time and again - virtually all these wackos are known to be wackos way before they do something really hideous.

 

Social kindness is all well and good but not at the cost of major social impact on hundreds of others. Seems to me that society largely glosses over the problems because they don't really know what to do for the best and their stupid human rights laws have sorely limited the options anyway. 

 

We're vigorous in trying to deal with shattered limbs and ailing bodies (at least we were once) but seemingly inept in dealing with the massive consequences of malfunctioning minds.   

                 

 You'd do yourself a favour if you banged that drum of yours at appropriate times.

 

the bloke was a disturbed 18 year old, I've not seen what information the German authorities had on him, if anything, but I'd be guessing it's not a lot. To claim he should be off the streets is slightly ridiculous. Unless you lock up every slightly disturbed teen anger which is obviously completely unfeasible you have no point.

[Thracian]

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 You'd do yourself a favour if you banged that drum of yours at appropriate times.

 

the bloke was a disturbed 18 year old, I've not seen what information the German authorities had on him, if anything, but I'd be guessing it's not a lot. To claim he should be off the streets is slightly ridiculous. Unless you lock up every slightly disturbed teen anger which is obviously completely unfeasible you have no point.

 

They have (and could have had) plenty of information on him - it's unlike you to be uninformed. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3704481/Loner-son-taxi-driver-department-store-worker-waged-terror-Munich-Iranian-German-teenager-18-targeted-innocent-children-gunned-nine-McDonald-s-massacre.html?ITO=1490

 

Do you really think this guy was safe to be on the streets and would you like to accept responsibility for telling all the parents and survivors your excuses for that happening?

 

Ridiculous? You're just another excuse-maker, another seeking to pass the buck. Slightly disturbed? I've love to hear your criteria for seriously disturbed. 

Edited 24 July 2016 by Thracian

[Thracian]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Right. The ideologues on one side are going to be disappointed that this wasn't another event they could blame on the big bad IS boogeyman, and the ones on the other side are going to be satisfied both at the demonstration that right-wing nutters can do horrifying things too and that the other side were wrong.

 

These incidents always get politicised, one way or another.

 

 

They're politicised because a  lot of people can't politically understand why we're bringing an ever-increasing number of such problems onto ourselves ie voluntarily, as if we don't have enough, sometimes similar, problems of our own which we'd found damned difficult to cope with.

 

Dealing with mental illness is ridiculously complex. We don't have sufficient places to confine and treat the seriously disturbed but that's what is quite often needed until there is proper indication of the disturbance being under control.

 

We're also in self-denial. Authorities know they are importing problems - mental, medical, philosophical, psychological - and yet they continue doing it and willfully increasing the dangers to our society. Why? And if there are genuinely defensible reasons, why are they so keen to hide the facts so often?

 

I don't pretend to know the complexities of why the Munich attack happened. And they don't matter really because I don't think people like this teenager should be free on the streets whatever their country of origin, whatever their faith, whatever qualifications they might have or for any other reason.

 

We don't let dangerous dogs walk free on the streets for long but, with people, who are far more dangerous, we don't seem to do anything until it's too late and I can only imagine the human rights laws inhibit the options or are there other reasons?

 

Such people need proper treatment both for their sakes and for ours.   

 

          

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Thracian said:

 

Nothing about this incident changes the dangers cultured and born out of misguided liberalism but it does emphasise two things that have been increasingly apparent for some years now and which are all but common denominators in these highly public crimes. 

 

One is the increasing number of wackos we have walking the streets and the second is the negative effect of publicity.

 

Terrorists, people driven to make some parting statement to the world and other wackos all crave publicity and that very publicity only encourages them for all that I can't ever imagine media organisations acknowledging their responsibility and denying themselves the chance to feast on a good story.

 

Both raise the lasting problem of how to deal with the situation especially given that any solution would be countered by those who continue to believe we're all equal,  should all love one another and should all hold hands. 

 

Yet every week the dead bodies mount up and every week the stupidity of such ideas are held up to ridicule with the liberals refusing to admit they're wrong and ingoring the desperate, ongoing hurt to so many victims, their families and their close friends - hurt which sometimes never goes away. It's a pity the rights of those people are not considered first and well before the rights of evil perpetrators.     

 

And they are evil. Having a troubled mind might be a recognisable problem - and one we should try to remedy - but it's no excuse and there's no excuse for those in authority - or the law - sidestepping the responsibity they carry for addressing the situation effectively because, as I've mentioned before and as is emphasised time and again - virtually all these wackos are known to be wackos way before they do something really hideous.

 

Social kindness is all well and good but not at the cost of major social impact on hundreds of others. Seems to me that society largely glosses over the problems because they don't really know what to do for the best and their stupid human rights laws have sorely limited the options anyway. 

 

We're vigorous in trying to deal with shattered limbs and ailing bodies (at least we were once) but seemingly inept in dealing with the massive consequences of malfunctioning minds.   

                 

 

You've spoken your cynical diatribe masquerading as realism before. It failed to convince me then and it continues to do so now. That might make me a naive idealist to you, but guess what: if Hobbes (and you) are right, then we've failed as a species and time and nature will prove that to be true in its own way.

 

Your points regarding mental healthcare are more well-founded, but the problem doesn't lie with rights legislation - it lies with both lack of access to quality mental healthcare and the stigma that still surrounds mental illness.

[Thracian]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

You've spoken your cynical diatribe masquerading as realism before. It failed to convince me then and it continues to do so now. That might make me a naive idealist to you, but guess what: if Hobbes (and you) are right, then we've failed as a species and time and nature will prove that to be true in its own way.

 

Your points regarding mental healthcare are more well-founded, but the problem doesn't lie with rights legislation - it lies with both lack of access to quality mental healthcare and the stigma that still surrounds mental illness.

The stigma may exist in your mind but not in mine, nor in my father's mind during his time nursing such often desperately poorly people.  

 

I don't know whether you're naive or just blinkered, but in terms of our failure as a species it's hard to imagine worse given the intelligence we've supposedly been blessed with. 

 

We're still in the dark ages and what little light is left seems to be growing dimmer by the day. 

 

Indeed we seem to create more problems than we ever solve. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Thracian said:

The stigma may exist in your mind but not in mine, nor in my father's mind during his time nursing such often desperately poorly people.  

 

I don't know whether you're naive or just blinkered, but in terms of our failure as a species it's hard to imagine worse given the intelligence we've supposedly been blessed with. 

 

We're still in the dark ages and what little light is left seems to be growing dimmer by the day. 

 

Indeed we seem to create more problems than we ever solve. 

 

 

 

You mean, you've never seen someone ostracised, or fired from work, or simply treated negatively because they were neurally atypical? "It's all in your head". "Think yourself better"...and "Oh, he's/she's nuts/a *insert slur for such things here*".

 

I'm surprised. There is more openness about mental illness these days, but it's still not something everyone is convinced even exists, let alone is a problem.

 

Regarding failure as a species, the failure isn't with those who want to see people actually get along with each other. It's with those who think that other people are there to be controlled. The ideology might be different for each person, but at the end of the day it boils down to one concept. Treating people as things. The whole "in the name of a god/nation/whatever else" is just smoke-filled coffeehouse bull that laughably makes their actions somehow palatable to other people. 

 

And the worst part? Some people think its human nature and don't think we can stop it, as if we're predestined to act like every other animal on this planet despite our supposedly higher intelligence - which is such a slap to the face of the idea of free will and personal responsibility I can't even fathom it.

 

If that's the case and we really can't escape our evolutionary roots, then, as I said, we have failed as a species, and that failure will become very clear in due course.

[Thracian]

I didn't say I'd never seen anything of the sort. Just that I've never felt it and don't understand such a concept any more than I would understand the "stigmatising" of someone who's "poor", who went to the "wrong" school, who lives in "the north" or who wears a "gay rights" shirt. 

 

It's incontestable that mental illness not only exists but is a massive and increasing problem. The more people the more mental as well as physical problems to solve...another downside of open borders and multiculturalism. 

 

The whole problem with your "getting along" ideal is that it assumes a fundamental desire in people to do that. It tries to see people as the same, as part of the same species and having a built in wish to be co-operative or mutually supportive. The concept simply doesn't add up and the evidence has been there in abundance through all history.

 

Far from being "equal", one of the greatest driving forces in man is to be different and to make their own mark. 

Their "getting along" to whatever degree is about safety or support in the pack and that is only necessary to protect against threat from other packs.

 

Even within the pack someone always wants/needs to be leader and to make their mark but that doesn't mean lesser pack members don't want to take the leader's place or make their own mark in their own way because they do and some become irrational/unstable in doing so (again as history demonstrates).

 

Some might see an ideal world as having no borders, no required religious idealogy,  no nationhood, a universal language etc with peace and common decency all around. But the theoretical utopia is no utopia, quite the opposite. It defies the truth and a good job too.

 

People are different, they do compete, they constantly argue that their slant is the right one, they each support their own team, country, religion or lack of it, their own philosophy, their own family, their own ambitions, desires, interests and so on.

 

There is no chance, or evolutionary sense, in people being equal or following the same philosophies. You end up with drones that are more controlled and non-descript than ever.  

 

What you might just strive for is a worldwide code of acceptable conduct - by agreeing one within your own community and demonstrating its wisdom to others by way of example.

 

Even dogmatic people get influenced or convinced to move their goalposts when there's a benefit or advantage to be gained. ~In other words they copy what they believe to be beneficial.      

 

But even then, and inevitably on a worldwide basis,  you're never going to overcome man's hypocrisy, greed, deception, inclinations to cheat or to modify principles to suit themselves or accommodate their aims. 

 

In the end I'd argue that smaller communities with stronger boundaries are easier to run and more likely to work effectively.

 

Wales comes to mind. They've worked so hard to preserve their language and their culture. People living and working there are expected to understand, embrace and respect that culture. That doesn't mean their border is closed or that outsiders aren't welcome as guests or that they can't get on with others.

 

What it means is that they celebrate their own history, beliefs, folklore and the progress that has made them different, valiantly protecting those differences as something they're proud of and believe to be well worth defending .

 

For me, it makes their country an always interesting and enjoyable place to visit and far better than the uncomfortable melting pots that increasingly exist both here in England and elsewhere.

 

Places where more and more city high streets have the same multinationals in the same prominent places, where each and every city encourages interracial and intersocial embracing as a must and where, if road humps appear in one place, they appear in every place.

 

I'm much more for Wales being Welsh, the French being French, the Chinese being Chinese, the Saudis being Saudis and each maintaining their own identity and spirit of welcome and cultural celebration for all their visitors...something I believe is being rapidly lost in the current mood of local and international hatred relating to some areas.   

 

Preserving cultures seems to make "getting along" a lot easier and more attainable. Rather like the success of twin towns in the past where people celebrated one another in the friendship of visitation rather than seeking to infiltrate them.

 

Because, in the end, the permanent multiculturism of widespread immigration only makes for friction, resentment and the eventual desire of one internal group to dominate the rest. That there are such groups is eminently plain to see.   

 

No wonder even small places are suddenly seeking to distance themselves from countries or unitary blocks like the EU are demanding their independence back and the right to chose their own future. 

 

Big may be portrayed as best on the porn channels (so I'm told!) but maybe, just gradually, small is coming to be seen as beautiful again. 

       

       

Edited 24 July 2016 by Thracian

[leicsmac]

Fair enough. You think that Hobbes is right, I think that Rousseau is. Guess only time will tell.

 

And you are right in that there is no evolutionary sense in people following the same ideals and you're also right in that mutual cooperation is something that humanity has struggled with. That's classical evolutionary instinct - protect you and yours and your 'tribe'.

 

However that same evolutionary instinct has made almost all complex species in the past end up the same way when the world changed in a way they weren't able to handle, viz. only thing left of them = fossil records.

 

You're right that competition is good. It allows humanity to progress, to strive. To be better than the other guy has led to some brilliant advances in the fields of art, science, whatever. However...there is going to come a time when we'll have to set such competition between nations, between religions, between ideologies aside...because the alternative will be the winners will simply be the last to die.

 

And I'll never stop thinking that humans are capable of being so much more than the call of their evolutionary instinct.

[Thracian]

Competition doesn't have to be fatal - it can, and should be, entirely positive or mutually inspiring.

 

 

[Captain...]

Horrific events in Germany, but it has opened dialogue on gun ownership laws. The questions are being asked how he got access to guns and they are already talking about how to tighten gun control laws.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/german-politicians-signal-review-of-gun-laws-after-munich-attack?client=safari#

 

Americans take note

Edited 24 July 2016 by Captain...

[Manwell Pablo]

12 hours ago, Thracian said:

 

They have (and could have had) plenty of information on him - it's unlike you to be uninformed. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3704481/Loner-son-taxi-driver-department-store-worker-waged-terror-Munich-Iranian-German-teenager-18-targeted-innocent-children-gunned-nine-McDonald-s-massacre.html?ITO=1490

 

Do you really think this guy was safe to be on the streets and would you like to accept responsibility for telling all the parents and survivors your excuses for that happening?

 

Ridiculous? You're just another excuse-maker, another seeking to pass the buck. Slightly disturbed? I've love to hear your criteria for seriously disturbed. 

Obviously they Have now, they didn't before that's the point so no unless im missing something I'm not uninformed. If we are locking up everyone who act like a twat on an Internet forum there is a fair few on here that need to look out. Not that they even knew that till after the event. There is nothing in that article to suggest he was viewed as even slightly dangerous by authorities prior to this  nor had he committed an act to earn a label as such.

 

again slightly disturbed is obviously how he was perceived before the incident. Needless to say He was extremely sick but you can only act on what information you have at the time. It's ok saying that now but it's a bit too late isn't, and if he doesn't give you any reason to believe he is anything but a bit strange until he shoots up McDonald's what do you do, hence the "unless your locking up every slightly deranged" remark in my last post you've either totally miss understood or purposely taken out of context.

 

As I say you'd do well to bang your drum when the authorities have actually failed someone. I think you have a point in regards to some of men behind some of the recent terrible events but not here.

 

You will never stop every pyschopath who wants to commit mass murder no matter how stringent you are and seems like there was little to be done here to me. You just look like someone desperate to prove a point and in order to do that your willing to use any source material you can appropriate or not.

Edited 24 July 2016 by Manwell Pablo

[Thracian]

7 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Obviously they Have now, they didn't before that's the point so no unless im missing something I'm not uninformed. If we are locking up everyone who act like a twat on an Internet forum there is a fair few on here that need to look out. Not that they even knew that till after the event. There is nothing in that article to suggest he was viewed as even slightly dangerous by authorities prior to this  nor had he committed an act to earn a label as such.

 

again slightly disturbed is obviously how he was perceived before the incident. Needless to say He was extremely sick but you can only act on what information you have at the time. It's ok saying that now but it's a bit too late isn't, and if he doesn't give you any reason to believe he is anything but a bit strange until he shoots up McDonald's what do you do, hence the "unless your locking up every slightly deranged" remark in my last post you've either totally miss understood or purposely taken out of context.

 

As I say you'd do well to bang your drum when the authorities have actually failed someone. I think you have a point in regards to some of men behind some of the recent terrible events but not here.

 

You will never stop every pyschopath who wants to commit mass murder no matter how stringent you are and seems like there was little to be done here to me. You just look like someone desperate to prove a point and in order to do that your willing to use any source material you can appropriate or not.

We'll agree to disagree. There's never an absolute - some wacko's are exceedingly good at hiding the sickness in their minds. But generally I think you can tell whether people are seriously unbalanced/disturbed or less so. Especially if you talk with them for any length of time. 

This guy had been having treatment for depression - a subject fairly recently discussed on here.

And it was clear from some who had suffered, that depression can be anything from a slight disturbance to a nightmare and can often make people genuinely suicidal, aggressive, reckless, vulnerable and so many other things.

I'm not desperate to prove a point. I've given my opinion the same as you and backed it up with information quickly made available which suggests even on day one that there were professional people who might well have been aware of the seriousness of this guy's disturbed mind.

I feel all but certain there will be more evidence to support that view, it's usually the case. But that's no help now. 

Why would I be "desperate" to prove anything?

And to what end?

It's not my nearest and dearest lying dead in Munich or as a result of the carnage in Nice.

I'm just sick of politicians vowing to do this or that after the event, but still actually avoiding making uncomfortable decisions that, while emphasising the folly of their previous actions, might start to mend the many mistakes made in allowing or assisting terrorists to bring carnage to our streets. Mistakes that are still recklessly ongoing.   

 

PS: Preparing for a year and two months as a mental in-patient - plus ongoing.

Seems pretty clear he had serious problems and people were aware of them.      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36878436           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 24 July 2016 by Thracian

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

We'll agree to disagree. There's never an absolute - some wacko's are exceedingly good at hiding the sickness in their minds. But generally I think you can tell whether people are seriously unbalanced/disturbed or less so. Especially if you talk with them for any length of time. 

This guy had been having treatment for depression - a subject fairly recently discussed on here.

And it was clear from some who had suffered, that depression can be anything from a slight disturbance to a nightmare and can often make people genuinely suicidal, aggressive, reckless, vulnerable and so many other things.

I'm not desperate to prove a point. I've given my opinion the same as you and backed it up with information quickly made available which suggests even on day one that there were professional people who might well have been aware of the seriousness of this guy's disturbed mind.

I feel all but certain there will be more evidence to support that view, it's usually the case. But that's no help now. 

Why would I be "desperate" to prove anything?

And to what end?

It's not my nearest and dearest lying dead in Munich or as a result of the carnage in Nice.

I'm just sick of politicians vowing to do this or that after the event, but still actually avoiding making uncomfortable decisions that, while emphasising the folly of their previous actions, might start to mend the many mistakes made in allowing or assisting terrorists to bring carnage to our streets. Mistakes that are still recklessly ongoing.   

 

PS: Preparing for a year and two months as a mental in-patient - plus ongoing.

Seems pretty clear he had serious problems and people were aware of them.      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36878436           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep let's lock up anybody who has ever had a mental health problem.

 

You really do post some utter nonsense.

[Jattdogg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705823/Machete-wielding-attacker-kills-woman-injures-two-new-German-outrage.html

 

This seems to be more domestic related but syran refugee just makes you wonder whats going on with so many who made the trek to europe

Edited 24 July 2016 by Jattdogg

[MC Prussian]

30 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705823/Machete-wielding-attacker-kills-woman-injures-two-new-German-outrage.html

 

This seems to be more domestic related but syran refugee just makes you wonder whats going on with so many who made the trek to europe

Macho culture and suppression of women's rights, coupled with an ancient sense of honour and pride. The (pregnant!) woman was allegedly wearing too provocative an attire, which led to him killing her. Madness.

[Trav Le Bleu]

How many pages do I have to go back to find something about terrorism?

 

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yep let's lock up anybody who has ever had a mental health problem.

 

You really do post some utter nonsense.

You can't even make a simple comment without misrepresenting someone. No-one's spoken about "anyone who's got a mental problem," and you well know it.

But by all means let the seriously disturbed continue going around shooting and maiming people, why not?

We certainly wouldn't want to impact on their human rights, whatever the victims lose, now would we?.

There's never any answers or semblance of practical responsibility from you. Just carry on effectively excusing the status quo and let's trust that the goodness of human nature will triumph in the end and never mind how many victims it takes.

It's you who talks nonsense and there's countless dead and injured to pay silent or tearful testimony. You've even got supporters, I notice, which goes a long way towards indicating the depth of the problem and the utter hopelessness of expecting anyone to actually deal with it. If someone had a broken leg most everyone would see the sense in mending it. But not minds. Too nebulous a problem but one that might go away in the morning with any luck and, if it doesn't, well, what can we do? .                

Edited 24 July 2016 by Thracian

[Thracian]

12 hours ago, Captain... said:

Horrific events in Germany, but it has opened dialogue on gun ownership laws. The questions are being asked how he got access to guns and they are already talking about how to tighten gun control laws.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/german-politicians-signal-review-of-gun-laws-after-munich-attack?client=safari#

 

Americans take note

 

 

Changing laws won't stop unbalanced or fanatical people getting guns. Especially with freedom of movement.

 

And if murderers are prepared to die in their own carnage I'm quite sure they'll find ways to get the tools to do their damage, whatever the law says.

 

It's the people need controlling most. Guns don't murder anyone without someone pulls the trigger. . 

 

  

[Jattdogg]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/25/ansbach-explosion-german-town-deliberate-blast-latest

 

Wtf is going on in germany?

[Nick]

9 hours ago, Thracian said:

You can't even make a simple comment without misrepresenting someone. No-one's spoken about "anyone who's got a mental problem," and you well know it.

But by all means let the seriously disturbed continue going around shooting and maiming people, why not?

We certainly wouldn't want to impact on their human rights, whatever the victims lose, now would we?.

There's never any answers or semblance of practical responsibility from you. Just carry on effectively excusing the status quo and let's trust that the goodness of human nature will triumph in the end and never mind how many victims it takes.

It's you who talks nonsense and there's countless dead and injured to pay silent or tearful testimony. You've even got supporters, I notice, which goes a long way towards indicating the depth of the problem and the utter hopelessness of expecting anyone to actually deal with it. If someone had a broken leg most everyone would see the sense in mending it. But not minds. Too nebulous a problem but one that might go away in the morning with any luck and, if it doesn't, well, what can we do? .                

Never a semblance of responsibility?

 

Never answers?  

 

Incredible. You use words like 'liberal' and 'practical responsibility' and 'making the hard decisions....' which basically mask what you really think without actually writing down the words - are you Donald Trump?

 

So this German lad was an inpatient because he was agoraphobic and had issues socialising so spent a couple of months as an inpatient and then was released and you think that if you'd had a chat with him for a bit you could have identified him as a 'wacko' and made the tough decision to somehow ensure he never hurt anybody?

 

That's just moronic Tony, sorry.

[Thracian]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Never a semblance of responsibility?

 

Never answers?  

 

Incredible. You use words like 'liberal' and 'practical responsibility' and 'making the hard decisions....' which basically mask what you really think without actually writing down the words - are you Donald Trump?

 

So this German lad was an inpatient because he was agoraphobic and had issues socialising so spent a couple of months as an inpatient and then was released and you think that if you'd had a chat with him for a bit you could have identified him as a 'wacko' and made the tough decision to somehow ensure he never hurt anybody?

 

That's just moronic Tony, sorry.

   

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36880758

 

Yet another example that strengthens my point. Another calculated terrorist action by a so-called asylum seeker who was allowed to remain in the country to be a risk to those around him.

 

The asylum seekers belong in Arab countries appropriate to their beliefs not as potential time-bombs in our own lands.

 

Of course the decisions are tough but not nearly as tough as the consequences of idealistic own goals.        

 

And,  yes, I do think I'd have known. As for "ensuring" he would never hurt anybody, I would never imagine that. But I would accept having the responsibility to try - and keeping him away from lethal weapons would have greatly improved the chances.

 

Your own answers.........?   

 

I still don't hear them.

 

   

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

   

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36880758

 

Yet another example that strengthens my point. Another calculated terrorist action by a so-called asylum seeker who was allowed to remain in the country to be a risk to those around him.

So even if your asylum application is turned down in Germany, you get to stay anyway?

 

It really is hard to have sympathy for some countries when they continue to bring these problems onto themselves, one day Merkel should stand trial in a court for how much bloodshed, rape and death she and her policy is responsible for, I won't hold my breath though on ever seeing it.

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

So even if your asylum application is turned down in Germany, you get to stay anyway?

 

It really is hard to have sympathy for some countries when they continue to bring these problems onto themselves, one day Merkel should stand trial in a court for how much bloodshed, rape and death she and her policy is responsible for, I won't hold my breath though on ever seeing it.

Mate, I have over 50 relatives hear in UK on failed assylum, the British government can't ship you back unless you have a valid passport (in this case Indian), so the only 2 options are to prison you (too expensive, violates human rights etc) or they let you go pending new passport arrival.