Beheading in the Streets

I’ve been tinkering with a post on yesterday’s cold-blooded murder and attempted beheading of a UK soldier by two Islamic men. But what is there to say? It was senseless, pointless, barbaric and brutal — everything we have to expect from Islamism. And while the video of these men speaking is horrific, I’m glad that people will get to see these men literally soaked in the blood of an infidel while they shout Islamic slogans. Maybe they’ll quit pretending Islamism isn’t savagery.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    Despite a shared common (somewhat) language, those Londoners really are different from the rest of us.

    Another video;

    Both terrorists had handguns, I thought London was a gun free zone, even the cops don’t carry guns, the progressive playbook tells us that guns are bad and gun free zones are safe (er), how did these terrorists get guns if they are illegal to possess?

    What is with all the bystanders trying to engage these fools? They (the terrorists) are clearly crazed dogs, packing crazed dogs, would not the prudent course be to get the hell out of there? They just killed a guy, terrorists and killing is like a normal person with a bag of potato chips, you can’t stop at just one.

    The press is lionizing this woman for intervening. She said she reached down to check for a pulse, I guess the absence of a head was not sufficient proof that a pulse was not forthcoming. Through the Jihadist’s statements they were there to collect a debt, an eye for eye for the dead Muslims in Afghanistan, but he was clear that many Muslims have died, including civilians, would true justice demand some civilian deaths as retribution? It was an absolute miracle that she and all the other lookie lews did not meet a similar fate.

    Why did it take the cops 20 minutes to get there? This is London, right? How long did it take the Boston cops to arrive at the scene, something like 2 minutes tops, yet these Bobbies got to take the scenic route. Can’t blame the extra weight of a firearm to slow them down.

    The terrorists wanted to dine at Allah’s table tonight, that is why they stuck around and threatened the officers when they finally got there, why couldn’t the cops accommodate them? I am really tired of these pussy jihadists that can’t see it through to the end. Allah should make them clean pig pens for a month once they finally make it to heaven.

    Too bad 2 guys don’t constitute a spontaneous demonstration, at least they didn’t blame this terrorist act on a stupid video.

    Thumb up 6

  2. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  3. HARLEY

    ‘We first received a 999 call from the public at 14:20hrs stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun. We had officers at the scene within 9 minutes of receiving that first 999 call.

    ‘Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known firearms officers were assigned at 14:24hrs. Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met.’

    So what were these “unarmed officers” doing while they were there? organizing the interviews the killers were offering? standing around with their thumbs up their ass? What were Citizens doing? JESUS WHAT THE FUCK were the Citizens of London and the occupants of this Military facility were doing?

    Thumb up 11

  4. richtaylor365

    Rich, I think the theory would go something like: the more guns involved, the greater chance more people would have died.

    Or……………if this soldier was armed at the time he might have been able to defend himself and walk away to live out the rest of his days, see how easy it is to play these scenarios?

    I pretty much avoid the gun control posts here because I realize that it is an individual decision to own or not own a gun. I get testy when the righteous progressives dictate how the rest of us should lead our lives, how they presume to know whats best for me then go about in an attempt to weaken my 2nd Amendment freedoms.

    But back to the scenario game. Assuming that these clowns really wanted to make a statement and take a few more eyes if you will since, as I stated before, Muslim civilians have died in Afghanistan as well. Two guys with guns and knives amongst a population of sheep (unarmed civilians). The handful of videos out there show many folks in the area, both within shooting and slashing range, why they stopped at one, I (nor you) can only speculate, but the body count could have been a lot higher.

    So what were these “unarmed officers” doing while they were there?

    I was thinking about that as well. Cops without guns are pretty useless, and considering that the first responders were unarmed, I would imagine they did not even get out of their patrol car, why would they, and risk being a target as well?

    To look at this as one death and extrapolate some wild theory that the body count was low because nobody (except criminals of course) carry firearms in London, misses the point by a mile.

    Thumb up 5

  5. balthazar

    Was it an ‘act of terror’, or a ‘terrorist act’? I demand answers!

    If you were the vic i would have called it “A humanitarian act”

    Thumb up 5

  6. CM

    Or……………if this soldier was armed at the time he might have been able to defend himself and walk away to live out the rest of his days, see how easy it is to play these scenarios?

    Maybe, if he’d had time to react. Not sure what the rules are on soldiers being armed on the street.
    Yes, I’m aware of the danger of playing out scenarios. Which is why I qualified what I said.

    I pretty much avoid the gun control posts here because I realize that it is an individual decision to own or not own a gun.

    I avoid them because I’m not an American (and I don’t properly understand/comprehend American gun culture). Personally, I’d rather be caught in street violence somewhere where guns are scarce. But that’s coming from an entirely different world-view on this from most of you guys. If I lived in the US I might share your views.

    I get testy when the righteous progressives dictate how the rest of us should lead our lives, how they presume to know whats best for me then go about in an attempt to weaken my 2nd Amendment freedoms.

    Fair enough.

    But back to the scenario game. Assuming that these clowns really wanted to make a statement and take a few more eyes if you will since, as I stated before, Muslim civilians have died in Afghanistan as well. Two guys with guns and knives amongst a population of sheep (unarmed civilians). The handful of videos out there show many folks in the area, both within shooting and slashing range, why they stopped at one, I (nor you) can only speculate, but the body count could have been a lot higher.

    As I said, it seems (from their reaction to the person who got out of the bus and tried to assist) that they weren’t interested in harming anyone else. They had a specific goal in mind, and they achieved it. They weren’t just looking to kill as many random people as possible. That seems to me to be the most plausible explanation. If armed Joe Publics started opening fire, surely it would have been a different story. They would presumably have shot back to defend themselves. Then we have non-armed people in the way of friendly fire and perp fire.
    I acknowledge that in some situations a person on hand with a gun and the ability and calmness to use it may well save lives. This doesn’t seem like one of those situations.

    I was thinking about that as well. Cops without guns are pretty useless,

    I’ll be sure to let my step-brother and sister-in-law know! ;-)

    and considering that the first responders were unarmed, I would imagine they did not even get out of their patrol car, why would they, and risk being a target as well?

    Well here I understand they just do what they can to clear and secure the area while the firepower arrives. It’s such an infrequent event that our societies (ours and their) have determined they’d still rather have unarmed cops and slightly longer armed response times to infrequent events. It is certainly a trade-off. The debate pops up here from time to time (including when my step-brother was shot and almost died in the line of duty two Christmases ago). However everyone realises that once it changes and cops are armed, there is no going back. You lose all the (significant) benefits of a mostly unarmed police force.

    To look at this as one death and extrapolate some wild theory that the body count was low because nobody (except criminals of course) carry firearms in London, misses the point by a mile.

    Not sure who you’re talking about. You were the one making a number of flippant claims (re: “the progressive playbook”, how they got guns, that they were animals and would attack anyone and it was a miracle they didn’t, that the cops took 20 minutes to get there, that presumably they got there slow on purpose – “the scenic route”, that the perps wanted to be killed by the cops, and that this can be compared to Benghazi).
    Who else has extrapolated like that?
    Again, I simply responded with how I expect the counter-argument would go to a single one of your extrapolated theories.

    Having said that, yes, I would say that body counts in many situations are reduced because of a lack of armed ‘Good Samaritans’. Once you open the genie (in terms of gun availability) you can’t get it back in the bottle.

    Thumb up 1

  7. richtaylor365

    (and I don’t properly understand/comprehend American gun culture).

    Given our history, the method by which we formed a new nation, the clear fear every citizen has towards tyranny and government oppression, and the sanctity of our God given liberties as enumerated in the Constitution, it’s not hard to understand/comprehend the American gun culture. The gun culture is no different from the free speech culture, the religious liberty culture, and the limited government who answers to the people culture, it is endemic. And this is coming from a guy who, yes, has a few guns in his home and is proficient in their use and application, but I am not by any means a gun nut. I respect anyone that has made the conscious decision to not have/own a gun, to live his life gun free, good for him. But just has it would be outrageous for me to compel that individual to own a gun and learn how to use it, the flip side, he sticking his nose in my affairs and abrogating my gun rights is equally outrageous.

    As I said, it seems (from their reaction to the person who got out of the bus and tried to assist) that they weren’t interested in harming anyone else.

    And given the target rich environment they found themselves in, no one else in the area packing or even the threat of anyone being armed, thank God they were NOT interested in harming anyone else, otherwise, the body count could have been much higher, wouldn’t you agree?

    They would presumably have shot back to defend themselves. Then we have non-armed people in the way of friendly fire and perp fire.

    Yes, a possibility, equally as plausible as my first scenario, that being an armed soldier, trained in the proficiency of his weapon, spots the hazard before becoming a casualty, and drops two bad guys, and round and round we go.

    I’ll be sure to let my step-brother and sister-in-law know! ;-)

    If it works for them where you live, great, but don’t discount my above scenario, two armed terrorists on a killing spree Ford Hood style, with cowering unarmed cops ill equipped to intervene.

    You lose all the (significant) benefits of a mostly unarmed police force.

    Not being a wise guy but can you elaborate on those “benefits”.

    Not sure who you’re talking about

    I’m talking about anyone who looks at this event and somehow attributes the one death and only the one death as some sort of ringing endorsement for gun free zones and unarmed cops that patrol them, there is no causation there and condemnation of the practice could have come just as easily with a different and bloodier outcome. They were lucky.

    Thumb up 5

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    But what is there to say? It was senseless, pointless, barbaric and brutal — everything we have to expect from Islamism.

    Hal I have to disagree.
    I view Islam as a purely political entity, with religious undertones. These zealots, IMO, were coaxed or perhaps coerced, into being martyrs. Their actions weren’t meant for you nor I to judge but for other like minded creatures to take up arms against ALL infidels. Their statements ( to other jihadi) after the murder reflect that they expected to be the catalyst for Holy War to begin in London.

    That soldier was nothing more than the ‘sacrificial sheep’ , in their opinion, for a much greater purpose. Again in their opinion.

    Keep in mind parts of Paris has been burning for 10 years, parts of Stockholm for at least 4 days.

    Coming soon to a muslim neighborhood near you. The ultimate distraction.

    Thumb up 3

  9. HARLEY

    What are those benefits?

    they cant “accidentally shoot” themselves or citizens for say recording them or such.

    Thumb up 6

  10. AlexInCT

    Apparently the wait was because most cops in London lack guns. The cops with pistols were far away.

    Even if they had been close, the axiom that police always show up in minutes when seconds count, remains a fact.

    I wonder if instead of actually shooting these fooks dead they didn’t capture these fooks alive because the British legal system, being far more authoritarian than most realize, will squeeze them hard for information, then make them rot in a cell. they don’t need no stinking Gitmo over there in Europe, because the sheep won’t complain too much as long as they don’t have to see the abuses by their government.

    The big question is if any of the idiots that tell us banning guns will prevent gun crimes will admit they are wrong and how fucked up their beliefs are after incidents like this. Of course, the obvious answer is no, because the agenda isn’t about stopping crime, but having a disarmed populous. Easier to have the sheep beaten into submission by the credentialed collectivist elite then.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  11. CM

    Given our history, the method by which we formed a new nation, the clear fear every citizen has towards tyranny and government oppression, and the sanctity of our God given liberties as enumerated in the Constitution, it’s not hard to understand/comprehend the American gun culture. The gun culture is no different from the free speech culture, the religious liberty culture, and the limited government who answers to the people culture, it is endemic.

    I completely understand the free speech aspect. The ‘tyranny and government oppression’ not so much. But the gun thing, not really at all.

    But just has it would be outrageous for me to compel that individual to own a gun and learn how to use it, the flip side, he sticking his nose in my affairs and abrogating my gun rights is equally outrageous.

    You appear to be using this situation in the UK to mock those who would rather not have so many guns around. Aren’t you kinda sticking your nose into the affairs of others there?

    And given the target rich environment they found themselves in, no one else in the area packing or even the threat of anyone being armed, thank God they were NOT interested in harming anyone else, otherwise, the body count could have been much higher, wouldn’t you agree?

    Absolutely. Thank goodness.
    I don’t see how that assists an argument that it would be better if more people had guns. Or that this is an example of how stupid the “progressive playbook” is.

    Yes, a possibility, equally as plausible as my first scenario, that being an armed soldier, trained in the proficiency of his weapon, spots the hazard before becoming a casualty, and drops two bad guys, and round and round we go.

    Your first scenario describes an entirely different event. My scenario just adds more guns to the existing scenario.

    If it works for them where you live, great,

    So you’d qualify that statement then?

    but don’t discount my above scenario, two armed terrorists on a killing spree Ford Hood style, with cowering unarmed cops ill equipped to intervene.

    Not impossible, but very very very rare. And the Woolwich situation was not even remotely that situation. More people having guns wouldn’t have helped, and could very well have made it worse.

    I’m talking about anyone who looks at this event and somehow attributes the one death and only the one death as some sort of ringing endorsement for gun free zones and unarmed cops that patrol them, there is no causation there and condemnation of the practice could have come just as easily with a different and bloodier outcome. They were lucky.

    Who is doing that?

    Not being a wise guy but can you elaborate on those “benefits”.

    They come from ‘policing with consent’ as opposed to being the visible rule of law.
    Here is a piece on it if you are interested.

    Thumb up 1

  12. CM

    As I say though, certain incidents re-ignite the discussion. This is the latest one (in Jan this year). The Police Association is the only group who supports arming the police.

    Tasers are becoming more widely used, and I think it’s far more likely that cops will be armed with those before guns.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

    But the gun thing, not really at all.

    As I said, it is not that hard to understand…………….for some of us.

    You appear to be using this situation in the UK to mock those who would rather not have so many guns around. Aren’t you kinda sticking your nose into the affairs of others there?

    Why do I bother even trying to have a dialogue with you? I guess this is another thing you don’t understand. Look, I was pretty clear in the above post. I respect those that don’t want guns in their life, that is their choice, but the door swings both ways. Keep your nose out of my affairs (and my choice to arm myself) as I promised I would do with you, how is this concept hard to grasp?

    I don’t see how that assists an argument that it would be better if more people had guns

    I was not making that argument, nice try. I was countering your extrapolation that this was a relatively minor incident with only one death and that can be attributed to such well behaved terrorists who could stop at just one, and the lack of other people being armed in the area.

    Your first scenario describes an entirely different event. My scenario just adds more guns to the existing scenario.

    And my scenario has two terrorists dead and no innocent bystanders, which in my mind is much more preferable then what we got.

    Not impossible, but very very very rare. And the Woolwich situation was not even remotely that situation. More people having guns wouldn’t have helped, and could very well have made it worse.

    I can see we are getting nowhere with this. We had one crazed jihadist at Ft. Hood who decided not to stop with just one, but here, we have two crazies, both with guns who did decide to just kill one person despite all those unarmed people milling around and you can’t bring yourself to admit that the potential could have been much worse with many fatalities, but no, they are not similar at all, got it.

    They come from ‘policing with consent’ as opposed to being the visible rule of law.
    Here is a piece on it if you are interested.

    I find it interesting that the police federation, you know, those guys that actually do police work day in and day out, those are the guys that want to carry firearms, for their one safety, but some egghead academician seems to think that “strength of personality” and “perception of authority” is all you need to apprehend even the dangerous of felons, how funny. I knew this guy was full of shit when he linked firearms with conducting arrests. I think he needs to go on a ride along, to see actual police work for himself. Firearms are not (and never were) used to conduct an arrest, the officer has other, non lethal tools at his disposal for this close quarter contact. But when deadly force is warranted, under those limited situations, a firearm is essential.

    Thumb up 7

  14. CM

    As I said, it is not that hard to understand…………….for some of us.

    I can’t be confident about what my opinion would be if I was an American.

    Why do I bother even trying to have a dialogue with you? I guess this is another thing you don’t understand. Look, I was pretty clear in the above post. I respect those that don’t want guns in their life, that is their choice, but the door swings both ways. Keep your nose out of my affairs (and my choice to arm myself) as I promised I would do with you, how is this concept hard to grasp?

    Because I don’t think it’s that simple. And because you seem to be using the Woowich incident to mock (rather than respect) an opinion you don’t share.
    People in the US can’t realistically choose not to have guns in their life, even if they don’t personally own any. Here we can, but that’s not as a result of individual choice, it’s a cultural thing.

    I was not making that argument, nice try.

    I wasn’t “trying” anything.

    I was countering your extrapolation that this was a relatively minor incident with only one death and that can be attributed to such well behaved terrorists who could stop at just one, and the lack of other people being armed in the area.

    It wasn’t an “extropolation”. I provided what I assume to be the opposing argument to what you said. The rest (number of deaths as a result of motive) was factual.

    And my scenario has two terrorists dead and no innocent bystanders, which in my mind is much more preferable then what we got.

    But your scenario is an entirely different event. It’s not as though you’ve just tweaked something, or added something minor. You’ve changed the very nature of what happened.
    I guess I don’t see the terrorists being killed as a preferable outcome. I’d always prefer people to be taken alive and subjected to a process of justice.

    I can see we are getting nowhere with this. We had one crazed jihadist at Ft. Hood who decided not to stop with just one, but here, we have two crazies, both with guns who did decide to just kill one person despite all those unarmed people milling around and you can’t bring yourself to admit that the potential could have been much worse with many fatalities, but no, they are not similar at all, got it.

    In terms of armed bystanders potentially being able to stop the perp(s) the situations are completely different, because at Woolwich the event was ‘stopped’ as soon as they got their target. If anything this is an example where having armed bystanders would only have led to more deaths.

    I find it interesting that the police federation, you know, those guys that actually do police work day in and day out, those are the guys that want to carry firearms, for their one safety,

    Well I don’t think it’s quite that cut-and-dry…..but it certainly seems to have moved in that direction. I think ultimately it’s probably inevitable.

    http://www.policeassn.org.nz/newsroom/publications/media-releases/police-association-calls-general-arming-police

    If there was no move to full general arming, virtually all members (95%) said they would support firearms being carried in every frontline police vehicle, while 88% said they would support permanent carriage of firearms by all field supervisors (sergeants and senior sergeants).

    Finally, members were asked which option they most favoured. When presented with these options, 53% of all members (including non-constabulary employees and senior management) most favoured better firearms availability short of general arming, while 44% most favoured general arming. However, amongst those groups of police most likely to be unexpectedly confronted by an armed offender in the course of routine duties, there was a clear majority in favour of general arming. 57% of Road Policing staff (which includes Highway Patrol and others responding to emergency calls in remote locations), 52% of General Duties frontline response staff, and 52% of staff working in rural areas, favoured general arming rather than ‘better availability of firearms’.

    So although there is now a majority of those at the front line in favour, it’s certainly not be a wide margin, and this is the first time they have been in the majority. So for the vast vast majority of time, police in NZ did not want to be armed (and by a wide margin for almost that entire time).

    but some egghead academician seems to think that “strength of personality” and “perception of authority” is all you need to apprehend even the dangerous of felons, how funny.

    It’s not just “some egghead academician”. As he outlines, the rationale goes back a long time before he came along and was shared by police themsevles. He’s just writing about it, which is why I linked to it. He describes the reality most people have experienced, including police. He just argues that it should continue, on the basis that single incidents (or even a collection of them) don’t justify it, and in his view (being aware of all the research) the benefits of an unarmed police force still trump the costs. The views of the police themselves are very important, but not the only consideration or relevant view.

    The Police Commissioner:

    “If any police officer requires a firearm, day or night, he or she shall have access to it,” he said.

    “But nothing that I’ve seen, nothing that I’ve read of heard, convinces me that the general arming of the police in New Zealand is going to improve the safety of police officers or indeed members of the public.”

    Marshall said if police were armed then the number of people shot by officers would probably rise.

    “We would have more instances of fire arms being taken off police officers and used against them as happens overseas,” he said.

    “There would be more inquiries into the actions of police relating to shootings and there would be trust and confidence issues.”

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/new-police-boss-rules-arming-officers-4102182

    Personally I can see how trust and confidence issues might start to occur if the cops start shooting more people. Between 1941 and 2008 the NZ Police have shot and killed only 22 citizens. Confidence and trust in the police is very very high (“11 points higher than the average for other public sector organisations in New Zealand” according to the latest research). So it wouldn’t take much to go wrong for those stats to start going in the wrong direction.

    I knew this guy was full of shit when he linked firearms with conducting arrests. I think he needs to go on a ride along, to see actual police work for himself. Firearms are not (and never were) used to conduct an arrest, the officer has other, non lethal tools at his disposal for this close quarter contact. But when deadly force is warranted, under those limited situations, a firearm is essential.

    He certainly seems to be well qualified to discuss the issue:
    http://www.aut.ac.nz/profiles/social-sciences/senior-lecturer/john-buttle
    I don’t really want to get into an “intellectual versus real world” debate (because it’s not relevant to the answer to your question) but I would have to assume he’s managed to get out of the office once and a while in order to have undertaken the work he has.

    Deadly force isn’t warranted very often. About as close to ‘never’ as it gets here.
    Anyway, the debate here will continue. As he notes, it’s very much an “incident driven” debate.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    Aren’t you kinda sticking your nose into the affairs of others there?

    Yet CM isn’t that exactly what you do pert-neer every time you grace this site?

    Thumb up 3

  16. CM

    Yet CM isn’t that exactly what you do pert-neer every time you grace this site?

    I guess that depends on how you wish to see it. Most of the discussions I’m involved in are universal in nature, even if the specifics are often American. I haven’t argued for gun-control or universal-healthcare in the US because that WOULD CERTAINLY be sticking my nose in.

    Thumb up 2

  17. Kimpost

    parts of Stockholm for at least 4 days.

    The riots are highly exaggerated, but I realise that’s just my opinion. That Islam or muslims have absolutely nothing to do with them, however, is not. Not even our racist nationalists have pulled that card. They do blame multiculturalism, though…

    Thumb up 0

  18. Mississippi Yankee

    The riots are highly exaggerated, but I realise that’s just my opinion. That Islam or muslims have absolutely nothing to do with them, however, is not.

    Are you saying that Prophets’ followers ARE the problem or the opposite?. Your sophisticated grammar has confused this slightly inebriated American.

    Anyway, keep your head down…they seem to like that part.

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    It certainly won’t find favour here, but I go along with Mr Brand’s take on this event.

    In my view that man is severely mentally ill and has found a convenient conduit for his insanity, in this case the Quran. In the case of another mentally ill and desperate man, Mark Chapman, it was A Catcher In The Rye. This was the nominated text for his rationalisation of the murder of John Lennon. I’ve read that book and I’ve read some of the Quran and nothing in either of them has compelled me to do violence. Perhaps this is because I lack the other necessary ingredients for extreme anti social behaviour; mental illness and isolation; either economic, social or both.

    Thumb up 0

  20. hist_ed

    Funny how so many of the mentally ill folks get inspired by one book. JD Salinger inspired one or two. The Beattles inspired Manson. That funny 6th century Arab guy seems to have inspired many thousands of loonies to cut off people’s heads. It’s interesting. No where in Catcher in the Rye does it instruct people to kill rock stars. None of Lennon and McCartney’s work instruct listeners to murder Hollywood starlets (well, that Silver Hammer song, maybe). Interestingly, the work of that guy named Mohammed does instruct his readers (fans?) to cut off the heads of infidels (and do other acts of violence). Also, there aren’t legions of Salinger focused lit prof advocating assassinations, are there? Yet there are myriad Muslim preachers happy to incite murder and worse. Yep, must be mental illness issue.

    Thumb up 9

  21. Iconoclast

    You appear to be using this situation in the UK to mock those who would rather not have so many guns around. Aren’t you kinda sticking your nose into the affairs of others there?

    This is ridiculous. There is no natural right to “not have so many X around”, whatever “X” might be, whether it be guns or drugs or dangers or inconveniences or snot-nosed kids or criminals or foul odors or lawyers or politicians or obtuse liberals. However, according to the US Constitution, we individuals do indeed have the right to bear arms. Ergo, by definition, mocking someone because that someone demands a nonexistent “right” is absolutely not “sticking one’s nose in someone else’s affairs”, whereas doing anything to diminish someone else’s Constitutional rights absolutely is “sticking one’s nose in someone else’s affairs”.

    It certainly won’t find favour here…

    ..but I’ll post it here anyway, just to be a pain…

    Why should we give a damn about Yet Another Hollywood Flaming Liberal’s opinion, which you obviously share? Why should your cite “find favor”? By all appearances, Mr. Brand is simply regurgitating all those Vietnam war era “make love not war” platitudes, even going so far as to imply that “the establishment” is our real enemy. How totally 1968…

    Thumb up 7

  22. CM

    Funny how so many of the mentally ill folks get inspired by one book.

    I would say a very very low percentage do.

    Interestingly, the work of that guy named Mohammed does instruct his readers (fans?) to cut off the heads of infidels (and do other acts of violence).

    Only if you read it out of context. If you read the Bible (or anything really) out of context you could ‘justify’ a whole lot of shit too. If you were mentally ill.

    Also, there aren’t legions of Salinger focused lit prof advocating assassinations, are there? Yet there are myriad Muslim preachers happy to incite murder and worse. Yep, must be mental illness issue.

    First and foremost I think it is. You don’t go onto the street and kill someone innocent unless you are mentally ill.

    There is no natural right to “not have so many X around”, whatever “X” might be

    Obviously someone who doesn’t subscribe to your philosophy about “natural rights” isn’t going to agree with your initial premise here. Like those in the UK for example.

    However, according to the US Constitution, we individuals do indeed have the right to bear arms.

    You do.

    Ergo, by definition, mocking someone because that someone demands a nonexistent “right” is absolutely not “sticking one’s nose in someone else’s affairs”, whereas doing anything to diminish someone else’s Constitutional rights absolutely is “sticking one’s nose in someone else’s affairs”.

    Woolwich isn’t in the US and obviously US Constitution doesn’t apply. Neither does the idea that gun ownership is a ‘right’.

    ..but I’ll post it here anyway, just to be a pain…

    Oh, I’m sorry, did it upset your delicate sensibilities. Was it beyond the narrow spectrum of tolerated opinion?

    Why should we give a damn about Yet Another Hollywood Flaming Liberal’s opinion, which you obviously share?

    I never said you should.

    Why should your cite “find favor”?

    Really? You’re having a go at my acknowledgement that I’m sure many here wouldn’t agree with the piece? Wow, you really must be having a slow day.

    By all appearances, Mr. Brand is simply regurgitating all those Vietnam war era “make love not war” platitudes, even going so far as to imply that “the establishment” is our real enemy. How totally 1968…

    If you mean he doesn’t support the (often) knee-jerk tribal mentality that always seems to advocate inflaming the situation, sure.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    Obviously someone who doesn’t subscribe to your philosophy about “natural rights” isn’t going to agree with your initial premise here. Like those in the UK for example.

    That’s okay — agreement isn’t required. My “philosophy” is nothing more than observation of the natural realm. Life is dangerous; the only truly safe place one can be is in one’s grave. Or urn, if one prefers. Life is simply full of unpleasantness, pains, discomforts, dangers, irritations. Anyone who would claim that they have a “right” to not have those things around is delusional or worse.

    Woolwich isn’t in the US and obviously US Constitution doesn’t apply. Neither does the idea that gun ownership is a ‘right’.

    You are correct — the US Constitution doesn’t directly apply. However, I was discussing what does or doesn’t qualify as “sticking one’s nose in someone else’s affairs”. The point I was making is that mocking someone simply doesn’t qualify. Interfering with their actual rights does qualify. Of course, you could now argue over what qualifies as “actual rights”, and might claim, on the UK’s behalf, that “not having unpleasantness around” could qualify. But that would be arguing against reality. That’s why specifying one’s right to protect oneself makes sense — it acknowledges the simple reality that Life is dangerous and that we do not have the power to change that fundamental fact of life.

    Oh, I’m sorry, did it upset your delicate sensibilities.

    Hardly. I just find it amusing that you would post obvious, nay acknowledged flame bait, then act surprised or indignant at the response. Now that may qualify as troll-like behavior.

    Wow, you really must be having a slow day.

    Says the guy posting the opinions of a Flaming Hollywood Liberal on a conservative/libertarian blog, apparently with the full knowledge that few would agree with said opinions. Seriously, what is the point if not to troll or flame-bait? Or to simply feel morally superior?

    If you mean…

    It’s amusing to watch you twist my words into your utopian vision. What I mean is that it’s easy to preach empty, feel-good platitudes from a safe distance, especially when you are a wealthy liberal with a soapbox. It’s much more difficult to actually practice it in the face of raw danger and hatred.

    Thumb up 8

  24. Iconoclast

    You’re having a go at my acknowledgement that I’m sure many here wouldn’t agree with the piece?

    You admit that the piece probably would not find favor here, yet you post it anyway, and state your agreement with it. It’s rather apparent they you believe it should find favor, even though you admit that it probably won’t. After all, it does find favor with you personally, enough such that you let it represent your view. I am merely asking why it should find favor. it’s a simple enough question, one that you apparently cannot answer. If you cannot defend your choice to post it here, then why bother?

    Thumb up 5

  25. CM

    Anyone who would claim that they have a “right” to not have those things around is delusional or worse.

    IMO anyone who claims that people who don’t share their opinion are delusional or worse, are delusional or worse. I personally (along with many others) don’t believe that specifically owning a gun (or a nuclear warhead) is any sort of “natural right”. It’s one that if society determines should be a right, they prepare or amend a Constitution accordingly. or vote in people who will make it so via a law. And usually with conditions.

    That’s why specifying one’s right to protect oneself makes sense — it acknowledges the simple reality that Life is dangerous and that we do not have the power to change that fundamental fact of life.

    In my view the fact that life is dangerous doesn’t automatically make gun ownership a natural right.

    Hardly. I just find it amusing that you would post obvious, nay acknowledged flame bait, then act surprised or indignant at the response. Now that may qualify as troll-like behavior.

    It shouldn’t be ‘flame bait’ at all. There’s a big difference between acknowledging that many won’t agree, and trolling.

    Says the guy posting the opinions of a Flaming Hollywood Liberal on a conservative/libertarian blog, apparently with the full knowledge that few would agree with said opinions.

    Says the trying wanting to get into an argument about the fact that I acknowledged that many here won’t agree.

    Seriously, what is the point if not to troll or flame-bait? Or to simply feel morally superior?

    There is a slim possibility some people (not, you obviously) might be tolerant of other opinions and feel like discussing them (like aduits), even if they don’t agree. It used to happen at Moorewatch forums quite often. Thought it might be worth a go. Obviously not.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    I personally (along with many others) don’t believe that specifically owning a gun (or a nuclear warhead) is any sort of “natural right”.

    So defending oneself against someone else who happens to have a gun is not a “natural right”, according to people like you. Go ahead and call me delusional, but from where I stand, it’s you lot who is delusional.

    In my view the fact that life is dangerous doesn’t automatically make gun ownership a natural right.

    Why not? After all, one of Life’s dangers may very well be some other dude with a gun, intending to do you harm. What you are saying is that having the ability to defend yourself from that particular danger is not a natural right. At least not “automatically”, whatever that means. Perhaps only when there’s an unfriendly gun pointed your way is when that right exists, according to your “logic”. Of course, by then, it may already be too late.

    There is a slim possibility some people (not, you obviously) might be tolerant of other opinions and feel like discussing them (like aduits), even if they don’t agree.

    That would depend on how you introduce a given topic, and again I find myself having to remind you of your exact words…

    It certainly won’t find favour here, but I go along with Mr Brand’s take on this event.

    CM, May 27, 2013 9:26 PM

    There is no indication whatsoever of any possibility of “adult conversation”, no matter how “slim”. Nope, you flat-out said, in completely non-ambivilant, absolute terms that the opinions you were citing would not find favor here, period, end of discussion, hallelujah, amen. Not only did you say “won’t”, you said “it certainly won’t”, and you never did bother answering my reasonable question: Why Should It?

    If you are going to maintain this pretense of desiring “adult conversations”, then perhaps you can be a tad less disingenuous and judgmental. If there ever was a “slim possibility” of “adult conversation”, you pretty much smothered it with your proclamation that it “certainly won’t find favour here”. Maybe if you could give us a smidgeon of credit, you could be rewarded accordingly. Or you could claim that you’ve been there done that already, and that giving credit is a waste of time…

    Alternatively, if you could swallow some of your pride, you could answer questions directed at you even if doing so might seem beneath you. Like I said before, if you cannot be bothered to defend your cite, or to explain what possible “favor” we should find, then you have no room to complain about the lack of “adult conversation”.

    Remember, I am not the one complaining about the lack of “adult conversation”, even implicitly. You are.

    It shouldn’t be ‘flame bait’ at all.

    Perhaps not, but when prefaced with, “it certainly won’t find favour here, but…”, it certainly comes across as flame bait, whether you like it or not.

    There’s a big difference between acknowledging that many won’t agree, and trolling.

    And you crossed that line. You didn’t “acknowledge that many won’t agree”, you essentially said nobody would agree, but you posted it anyway. I am hard pressed to understand how that wouldn’t qualify as trolling or flame-baiting.

    Thumb up 3

  27. Iconoclast

    IMO anyone who claims that people who don’t share their opinion are delusional or worse, are delusional or worse.

    Clever, I suppose, but I wasn’t merely offering an “opinion”. I was making an observation. Sure, you can stand there and act all judgmental, but I stand by my assertion: Anyone who considers it a “right” to have the inconveniences/dangers/annoyances/pains of life somehow magically removed is delusional. That isn’t really an “opinion” so much as an observation, kind of like asserting that anyone who thinks the sky is pink and purple at noon on a clear day is delusional, or anyone who thinks that the Earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant tortoise is delusional.

    Life is what it is, and it is often inconvenient, or dangerous, or annoying, or painful. That’s just Reality, and there is no reason to believe anyone has a “right” to a life free from all of those aspects, any more than there is reason to believe anyone has a “right” to never die…

    So you go ahead and think I’m the delusional one. You are obviously free to think any hare-brained thing you want.

    Thumb up 3

  28. CM

    So defending oneself against someone else who happens to have a gun is not a “natural right”, according to people like you. Go ahead and call me delusional, but from where I stand, it’s you lot who is delusional.

    I would consider defending oneself a ‘natural right’. The method by which people in a society can defend themselves, and the extent (in terms of force) is something that I would consider is determined by that society. Lines are drawn. Even in the US lines are drawn.
    Do you believe you have a ‘natural right’ to own a nuclear warhead and to use it on someone who enters your property without your express permission?

    What you are saying is that having the ability to defend yourself from that particular danger is not a natural right. At least not “automatically”, whatever that means.

    I think it’s clear what I meant by ‘automatically’. Bad things can happen, but that doesn’t automatically mean that all and any defensive methods and measures can be considered a ‘right’.

    That would depend on how you introduce a given topic, and again I find myself having to remind you of your exact words…

    Which were in no way inflammatory or insulting or offensive or intended to cause anger.
    You’ve provided a good example of how the word/term ‘trolling’ has no meaning on this blog. My post and link were on topic, wasn’t offensive or inflammatory, and it wasn’t a post-and-run situation.
    You’re clutching at straws.

    There is no indication whatsoever of any possibility of “adult conversation”, no matter how “slim”.

    No with you clearly, no. It’s clearly not your thing.

    Nope, you flat-out said, in completely non-ambivilant, absolute terms that the opinions you were citing would not find favor here, period, end of discussion, hallelujah, amen.

    Wow, that’s seriously weak. ‘Not finding favour’ isn’t even close to being what you’re attempting to make it out to be.
    This is so ridiculous I’m beginning to think you’re only doing this to take the piss.

    Not only did you say “won’t”, you said “it certainly won’t”,

    Oh the horror.

    and you never did bother answering my reasonable question: Why Should It?

    Because it’s not unreasonable and it’s not offensive.
    But your question isn’t meaningful. Just as the expression I used to introduce the piece was neither here nor there. You’re trying hard to probe something which is not probe-worthy.

    If you are going to maintain this pretense of desiring “adult conversations”, then perhaps you can be a tad less disingenuous and judgmental.

    Says the guy who says I posted something just to “be a pain”, says I’ve introduced ‘flame bait’ knowingly, says it “may qualify as troll-like behavior”, etc etc.
    How was it disingenuous and judgmental to post a link to that piece and acknowledge that many here won’t agree with it?
    How are your responses (and hist_ed’s response) not disingenuous and judgmental?

    If there ever was a “slim possibility” of “adult conversation”, you pretty much smothered it with your proclamation that it “certainly won’t find favour here”.

    If that’s all that’s required to “smother” any chance of an adult discussion with you then you should just give up the pretense of being able to actually have one. It wasn’t a ‘proclamation’, it was just a way of introducing the piece and acknowledging that I realise that many here won’t agree.
    That my acknowledgement somehow made you angry (or however you wish to describe it) is your issue to deal with.

    Maybe if you could give us a smidgeon of credit, you could be rewarded accordingly. Or you could claim that you’ve been there done that already, and that giving credit is a waste of time…

    Nothing I said precludes anyone here coming along and agreeing with it. ‘Here’ is a collective term, it doesn’t mean there won’t be individuals who can’t and won’t agree. Or partially agree.
    But that’s hilarious that you want to talk about giving people credit when we’ve had long discussions about your inability to do exactly that.

    Remember, I am not the one complaining about the lack of “adult conversation”, even implicitly. You are.

    No, I know you’re fine without it. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

    Perhaps not, but when prefaced with, “it certainly won’t find favour here, but…”, it certainly comes across as flame bait, whether you like it or not.

    I don’t see how anyone could reasonably be offended about my acknowledgement (if that’s ‘flame-bait’ then a shitload of what is said is ‘flame-bait’).

    And you crossed that line. You didn’t “acknowledge that many won’t agree”, you essentially said nobody would agree, but you posted it anyway. I am hard pressed to understand how that wouldn’t qualify as trolling or flame-baiting.

    I am hard-pressed to see that you’re being even remotely reasonable amount this. This just looks like a case of wanting to pick a fight.
    I didn’t “essentially” say that nobody would agree at all. I acknowledged that most here take a view on Islam(ism) that won’t be consistent with what Brand says. Even if one or two posted that they agreed (even partly) that wouldn’t mean that I was wrong.
    In summary, calm down.

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    Clever, I suppose,

    Yeah, that’s what I thought. Do you not realise that’s how you come across?

    but I wasn’t merely offering an “opinion”. I was making an observation. Sure, you can stand there and act all judgmental, but I stand by my assertion: Anyone who considers it a “right” to have the inconveniences/dangers/annoyances/pains of life somehow magically removed is delusional.

    Magically removed?
    Sorry, I don’t recall relying on magic in any of my opinions (or observations).
    It is clearly your opinion (which you are entitled to) that allowing the population to own and use guns is more than just appropriate, but a “natural right”. That’s fine. It’s still your opinion. You don’t get to determine that it’s “natural” any more than I do.

    That isn’t really an “opinion” so much as an observation, kind of like asserting that anyone who thinks the sky is pink and purple at noon on a clear day is delusional,

    You can use science to demonstrate that the sky wasn’t pink and purple. How people are allowed to defend themselves is something that is determined by a society, and imposed/policed by via laws and a justice system. It’s potentially subject to change, unlike the science demonstating the colour of the sky.

    or anyone who thinks that the Earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant tortoise is delusional.

    Same thing again.

    Life is what it is, and it is often inconvenient, or dangerous, or annoying, or painful. That’s just Reality, and there is no reason to believe anyone has a “right” to a life free from all of those aspects, any more than there is reason to believe anyone has a “right” to never die…

    I agree. They aren’t ‘right’ either, ‘natural’ or otherwise.

    So you go ahead and think I’m the delusional one. You are obviously free to think any hare-brained thing you want.

    So very classy.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Iconoclast

    Do you believe you have a ‘natural right’ to own a nuclear warhead and to use it on someone who enters your property without your express permission?

    Is this supposed to be an example of ‘adult conversation”? Or are you saying I’m simply not worth the effort?

    Why do you liberals always use this ridiculous gambit in your attempt to question my rights? In your ridiculous, contrived scenario, a nuke is obviously overkill, and would destroy the property I would otherwise choose to protect; it would be a self-defeating choice to use a nuke. Again, we are at that “Somalia Canard” scenario, where liberals go off the deep end in pointing to a third-world dictatorship hell-hole as the natural result of libertarian policy, or otherwise imply that advocating smaller, limited government is the equivalent of advocating anarchy.

    Criminals often have guns. That is a fact of life. Not many criminals have access to nukes, and the likelihood that I will be assailed by a criminal wielding a gun is far, far greater than the likelihood of my being assailed by a thug wielding a nuke.

    Bad things can happen, but that doesn’t automatically mean that all and any defensive methods and measures can be considered a ‘right’.

    Perhaps not “any and all”, but I would think/hope “reasonable” would qualify. The point is that you don’t seem to want to discuss what is “reasonable”. By all appearances, you would rather point to the absurd extremes and use that as a bludgeon against reasonable measures, or reasonable discussion.

    No with you clearly, no. It’s clearly not your thing.

    As if you’d have a clue, as if you are one to judge…

    Wow, that’s seriously weak. ‘Not finding favour’ isn’t even close to being what you’re attempting to make it out to be.

    Words have meanings, no matter how inconvenient that may be, but do go ahead and remain in denial.

    Oh the horror.

    Wow, that’s seriously weak. If the fact that words have meanings is a source of such horror for you, then your problems run deep…

    Because it’s not unreasonable and it’s not offensive.

    Thanks for finally answering the question. I disagree that it should necessarily find favor merely for being inoffensive or for not being unreasonable, but I do appreciate that the question is answered.

    But your question isn’t meaningful.

    You do that a lot — assume that just because you cannot/will not find meaning in something, it must therefore universally be meaningless. The question had meaning from my perspective, which is why I asked it in the first place. And frankly, I was hoping for a better answer than “it isn’t offensive”, but I take whatever I can get.

    Says the guy who says I posted something just to “be a pain”, says I’ve introduced ‘flame bait’ knowingly, says it “may qualify as troll-like behavior”, etc etc.

    And I have provided explanations across the board. And you have yet to disprove any of it.

    How was it disingenuous and judgmental to post a link to that piece and acknowledge that many here won’t agree with it?

    So now we get to repeat ourselves. What fun. You didn’t “acknowledge that many here won’t agree with it”. You flat-out asserted that nobody would. That is what qualifies it as flame-bait, the notion that it is something with which nobody would agree. Or at least implying that such would be the case. Hell, for the record, I have yet to state that I personally don’t agree with it. Just because I consider it to be empty, self-righteous bloviation doesn’t mean I think it’s wrong. I just don’t think self-righteous bloviation is very helpful or constructive, especially when coming from a wealthy Hollywood Liberal who is soap boxing from a nice, safe distance.

    But I have already explained all of this.

    What was “disingenuous and judgmental” was your being so presumptuous as to assume absolutely nobody would agree with it, that you alone are so “enlightened” as to desire “not inflaming the situation” or whatever.

    If that’s all that’s required to “smother” any chance of an adult discussion with you then you should just give up the pretense of being able to actually have one.

    I’m not the one attempting to maintain any such pretense. That would be you. And you can go through life trying to trivialize away your faults, but you are only fooling yourself.

    That my acknowledgement somehow made you angry (or however you wish to describe it) is your issue to deal with.

    Assuming this to be the case, then why are you still here arguing about it?

    Nothing I said precludes anyone here coming along and agreeing with it.

    Obviously. So you were wrong to state that nobody would agree with it. Thanks for the admission.

    But that’s hilarious that you want to talk about giving people credit when we’ve had long discussions about your inability to do exactly that.

    Again, I am not the one complaining about the lack of “adult conversation”. That would be you. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the only real issue I have is with false pretense. If you want to have grown up discussions, then proceed accordingly. Don’t be snarky. Ever. Give people credit. Always. Don’t worry about other people’s shortcomings. Discuss the issues. Period.

    If you cannot do those things consistently and unfalteringly, you have no room to whine when others fail to meet the standard. Again, you are the one pontificating about “adult conversations”.

    Thing is, one can discuss issues while also engaging in ad hominem, invective, and general snarkiness, People do it here all the time, including you. Hell, even I discuss the actual issues on rare occasion, when the planets are appropriately aligned. But again, the only one I ever notice whining about “adult” this or “adult” that is you, but you ain’t one to judge. That has been my overriding issue. But go ahead and keep whining about it and pretending that you are the only adult in the room. It does somehow become you…

    No, I know you’re fine without it. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

    And the fact that you are sill here arguing and whining proves that you are likewise fine without it, your pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding. That is the point you seem hell-bent on dodging.

    In summary, calm down.

    I’d have to get excited first, but somehow, being engaged in a non-adult conversation with you fails to get me excited. Imagine that…

    Magically removed?
    Sorry, I don’t recall relying on magic in any of my opinions (or observations).

    What you do or don’t recall is hardly relevant. The point is that it would take magic to eliminate all hardship from Life, so claiming that something — which would require magic to implement — is some kind of “right” is indeed quite delusional, and has little to do with “opinion”.

    Unless, of course, you have some method or technique we haven’t seen before that would remove all hardship from life. If you do, please do share it with us and enlighten us.

    You can use science to demonstrate that the sky wasn’t pink and purple. How people are allowed to defend themselves is something that is determined by a society…

    Nice moving of the goal posts there, chief. When I stated, “That isn’t really an ‘opinion so much as an observation”, I was not referring to gun ownership. No, I was referring to the notion that someone could claim the “right” to not have pain or hardship in their life, and was asserting that such a claim is delusional, which you tried to dismiss as “opinion”. Well, no, again, it’s observation, not “opinion”, that life simply has hardship in it, and that it would take magic (or something close to it) to remove it from life.

    Same thing again.

    And just as inappropriate again.

    So very classy.

    Wow, that’s seriously weak.

    Thumb up 2