 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Outrage?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Jun 17 - 07:32 PM My nephew challenged me yesterday on Facebook about the riots that took place in U.S. cities after the election of Trump. I thought they were just demonstrations that got a little out of hand, but he thinks otherwise. He wonders why liberals were not outraged by the thefts committed and damage done by the rioters. I asknowledge that some of the anti-Trump demonstrations have gotten out of hand, but I didn't really know of widespread looting or damage, or injuries. If I were a good citizen, should I have been outraged by the demonstrations? I don't really know how to respond. I hear similar complaints every time there's a terrorist attack - if the Muslims don't support this violence, they say, why aren't they outraged and why don't they issue statements condemning the violence? I've gotten some of that here - people accusing me and other Catholics of supporting child-abusing priests because we did not express an appropriate amount of outrage. And white people get the same when white police officers abuse blacks; and blacks get condemned because they don't support the police; and Brits because of the Brexit vote; and Americans because of Trump; and so forth, and so on. Now, it seems to me that this "failure to display appropriate outrage" accusation is really lame, but people on all sides throw the accusation as often as they can. It seems to me that this accusation is a form of bigotry - blaming the larger group for the misdeeds of the few. What do you think? Should I have apologized to my nephew for the Anti-Trump protests that some of my fellow Democrats conducted? Should I feel obliged to offer to pay merchants for any damages they suffered? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Jun 17 - 08:27 PM Well it could be opportunist bigotry. But if you voluntarily belong to an institution that is involved in institutional wrongdoing, then, as a member of that institution, you can expect to be challenged and you'd better be ready to face the challenge. At the height of the Troubles I well remember TV interviewers sticking microphones into the faces of the likes of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams demanding that they condemn whatever the latest atrocity was. The line of interrogation was never legitimate because the questioner was arguing from their assumed standpoint of outraged righteousness, a black and white position that paid no regard to the long history of grievance. That wasn't to defend the committing of atrocities, not at all, but it was to say that I'm not going to respond to your facile question concerning an issue emanating from many decades of complexity. There is such a thing as asking the wrong question, and refusing to respond is not evasion. Having said all that, the best policy is simply to say what you think. You'll always be respected for your honesty. Knowing that the Church institutionally covered up child abuse isn't a reason for leaving but it may be a reason for fighting from within in order to make the Church better. It's a reason for honestly acknowledging what's happened and for expressing your outrage for the flaws of the sort that are likely to afflict any large and cumbersome institution. Your critics may be confronting you from what they see as their "ethical" position. Well just ask them who they bank with and if they know what questionable enterprises their bank is investing their money in. We're all in it together and even the most sanctimonious of us have to breathe the same polluted air. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Donuel Date: 01 Jun 17 - 09:09 PM Early in law school a proposition is introduced of "Whose ox got gored?" It goes beyond an old saying , it goes all the way back to Exodus in the Bible. The perspective changes as we learn who has a complaint or outrage and why. Not everyone's ox was gored on Inauguration day. There is a growing out rage as the 50 greatest achievements of Barak Obama are reversed one by one. White supremists are leaving nooses around the Mall, Museums and Universities to declare their racism symbolically. So far only one murder of a student was admitted by a alt right Nazi. I have sarcastically said it is a good thing Obama did not cure all cancer because Trump would reverse that too. In DC there were less than twenty kids dressed in black with black masks who did break a Starbucks front window on Inauguration day. As for looting what of value can one take from Starbucks, a coffee grinder? I do not know if the kids who were called anarchists were really goons planted to discredit civil protestors or not. That was the extent of a riot in DC but the DC police cleared that intersection up to three blocks. The most dramatic visual were smoke bombs that were not tear gas. The other kind of loss of life are the deportations of mothers and fathers from their children. Hispanics are on edge. So in comparison to the peaceful womens march there is violence stemming from trump accusations but not in great numbers. Knowing what I do of the human psyche it is not surprising that people are convinced of a scenario they have not seen to be absolutely true. My neighbors in the State Dept. lost their job and moved without comment. Where is the outrage? As long as someone else's ox is being gored there is little outrage. When everyone's ox is gored, look out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jeri Date: 01 Jun 17 - 09:20 PM It's just another way for the "holier than thou" to come out. Control freaks who can't handle anybody who's different from them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Jun 17 - 09:46 PM Well it could be and often is. But there are such things as legitimate challenges. If you feel you're being challenged illegitimately you can say so, give your reason if you think your challenger is intelligent enough or, simply, just not be arsed. In another thread this very day, person A accused person B of having a credibility issue because he'd declared himself opposed to referendums only after a referendum result had not gone his way. I mean, how do you respond to that? To hell with the vexatious! Life's too short! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: meself Date: 02 Jun 17 - 01:24 AM First, you have to judge the mentality and intent behind the question ("Where's the outrage?"). Usually these days it seems to be merely an attempt to score points, or to have a comeback ("Oh, so you're outraged about our President handing our country over to Putin? What about that broken Starbucks' window - where's your outrage over that?"). However, if you belong to a group that your interlocutor is genuinely suspicious of, then it may be best to bite the bullet and make it clear that you do not approve of the behaviour of some deviant member of your group. For instance, in all likelihood there are people out there who really do believe - or strongly suspect - that all Muslims approve of terror attacks by Muslim fanatics. Most of these people have probably never met an actual Muslim. At least some of them would be pleasantly surprised to discover that a Muslim may be a reasonable, even likable, person. It's not fair that some people get stuck into the position of feeling they have to disavow the behaviour of others, but - it's how we get along. If your brother insults the neighbours, you might feel you should let the neighbours know that the rest of the family disapproves of the brother's behaviour .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: DaveRo Date: 02 Jun 17 - 01:56 AM Joe Offer wrote: My nephew challenged me yesterday on Facebook ...Do you mean he did this publicly, so that others might be able to see the conversation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 17 - 02:20 AM Hi, DaveRo - oh, yes, he challenged me publicly, and I didn't mind his giving me the opportunity to speak my peace in front of his conservative friends. I think he kinda likes having a token liberal in the family.... Part of the psychology of this approach is that the speaker expresses the assumption that the target person supports the wrongdoing, without actually having to prove the accusation in a straightforward way. Many times, that target person may have worked within his/her own group for years to oppose the wrongdoing, but all of a sudden somebody is demanding expressions of apology and outrage. And Steve Shaw, let me say right now that I am opposed to referendums, even when "my side" wins. It's a simplistic way to make complicated law, and too often it ends in disaster. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: DMcG Date: 02 Jun 17 - 02:31 AM I think it is also important not to be outraged on demand. At the risk of reviving painful memories for some I was berated on here during the Katrina tragedy when the matter came up about some nurses who abandened their charges in nursing homes. As I stressed, that's a dereliction of duty and certainly put the peoples life at risk. But you must remember these nurses are also people: they have families at risk as well - parents, children, whoever. And they are not soldiers where "the ultimate sacrifice" was a recognised part of the job when they signed up. So while their behaviour was hardly admirable, I was not prepared to be outraged by it. It was not a popular stance, I must tell you. But one reason I think this is important is to ensure you are outraged at the right things. It is desperately easy to move from outrage at terrorists who have a particular view of Islam to all Muslims; or from a hatred of how some members of a political party behave to all members of that party and so on. Not all Conservatives are demons (substitute party of your choice) And this is not weàk and washy liberalism where everyone has an excuse dor wht they behaved as they did: it is a call for all your outrage to be focused where it needs to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 17 - 02:44 AM In the light of Trump's horrific decision on climate change yesterday, I think you/we are the ones who are owed an apology - after all, it's your nephew's future that stands to be turned into a garbage heap. Hopefully the protests he is is complaining about will be only the first of many. What were your countrymen thinking of Joe!! "I am opposed to referendums," I know you've visited Ireland times - they've some revolutionary changes here, as has proportional representation. The secret is not to allow them to be hi-jacked by populism and keep interest groups with agendas from not getting their grubby hands on them - possible with half-decent legislation. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 17 - 02:52 AM What were my countrymen thinking of, Jim? Well, we thought we won the Presidential election quite handily by 3 million votes. Three. Million. Votes. It's just recently that we've begun to realize that the Republicans have been gerrymandering us out of our popular votes for most of the last decade, maybe longer. I think I have the numbers correct - based on popular vote alone, the Democrats should have had a solid majority in both the House and the Senate for the last twenty years - not to mention the fact that we should have won the Gore-Bush and Clinton-Trump Presidential elections. I'm not sure how we got ourselves into this mess, Jim - and I don't know how we're going to get out. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 17 - 03:27 AM I was going to mention that Steve and I did respond to it as you have suggested. There was an even more outlandish challenge, on that same topic. I was told that because I believe the government should get on the job they are paid for I must have agreed with the war that Blair took us in to. It did set me thinking and I came to the conclusion that people are conflating agreement and acceptance. I accept that the government has the mandate to run the country on our behalf but I do not always agree with their every decision. If enough people disagree, the government will change at the next opportunity. It is the way democracy works. What has this to do with outrage? How do we measure it anyway? I was outraged at the Gulf war but, because the majority of people, including myself in this case, had voted in that government, I had to accept that they were doing what they were supposed to. That government did change at the next opportunity but unfortunately not for the better. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Mr Red Date: 02 Jun 17 - 03:49 AM The OP does not define the actual intent of the few perpetrating the misdemeanors. Any large gathering contains a spectrum of opinions. And any large gathering is a magnet for people of one single opinion, criminality. And in the era of post truth, are you sure they are not of the opinion that Trump is OK, and placed there to discredit the gathering? By their nature, you won't be able to tell which. And either way they rely on that - ultimately. Yes be outraged. On the principle that Muslims should be more vocal, some are, so should the anti-Twitler cohort. There has to be a culture of openness to dilute the extremes. Otherwise we become complacent. Farcebook is a conduit for the "drip drip" methodology so successful with Bexit & Trump, but it goes both ways. Start dripping - PAL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:27 AM "I'm not sure how we got ourselves into this mess, Jim" Sorry Joe - that was a cry of despair We're as much to blame with our 'Little Englander' Brexit opening the door to European Fascism. Sometimes I'm very glad to be old and won't have to live through the consequences of what we've done to this beautiful planet for much longer - selfish, I know. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:41 AM Well, I have to think that somehow, we on the left have failed. I just haven't figured out how that happened. When I was 20, I was sure that we'd soon fix things and have peace and full housing and employment and universal healthcare, and equal rights for all. Almost half a century has passed, and huge numbers of voters don't want what we dreamed of. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Iains Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:42 AM D the G. Surely it is many people sharing your attitude that allowed for the rise of Nazi Germany. After all Hitler rose to power on the back of legitimate elections. I cannot recollect a groundswell of opinion disputing this fact-unlike the recent election of President Trump. Where do you draw a line in the sand? As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:48 AM We occasionally get calls, usually from people of the ghastly ukipper mentality, for "Muslim community leaders" to condemn the latest terrorist outrage. The implication seems to be that if they don't do so they, as mainstream Muslims, are somehow condoning the terrorism, which in turn smears all Muslims. As Dave says, the government which we may have voted for may do things (WILL do things...) that we would rather they didn't. I was outraged by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and turned out to protest on the streets but guess what - in 2005 I still voted to keep the bloody Tories out at all costs. Which meant holding my nose and "supporting" Blair. I wasn't even going to use the excuse that the Tories had also supported the war. There was a bigger picture. But I haven't shut up ever since condemning him for that horrible adventure. Life isn't just a string of single issues - it's a big tangled ball of string with lots of knots in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Jun 17 - 05:08 AM Surely it is many people sharing your attitude that allowed for the rise of Nazi Germany. Nonsense. All I am saying is that the government are elected to do a job and should do it without having to ask a largely unqualified and misinformed electorate to decide for them. If we are outraged enough, we can force a new election. You have put up the straw Nazi and I claim Godwin's law. Thread to be closed forthwith. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: DMcG Date: 02 Jun 17 - 05:32 AM I am not sure why, but I seem to have quoted bits of Kipling's "If" a lot recently. Here we go again: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools: That's where we are, in many ways. And we really only have the option he gives. Stoop, pick them up, and try again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Jun 17 - 05:40 AM It was an egregiously stupid remark even by Iain's occasional standards, and here's me thinking he was trying harder. Returning to the vexatious issue of child abuse by priests (it happens to be a good example of what we're talking about and Joe did raise it), if it's raised and members of the Church try to deflect instead of condemning, there will be a natural backlash. It's fine to list all the good things about the Church but that's the deflection that doesn't sound especially honest. We've had a massive issue of institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police in recent years. The investigation of the murder of a black teenager was badly bungled and there were attempts to smear the victim's family. The police are far more likely to stop and search you if you are a young black man. It is very difficult for black members of the force to rise through the ranks and they are under-represented by comparison with London's ethnic diversity. There has been plenty of deflection and denial over the years, but the force has come to acknowledge that the accusation is justified. There's a long way to go but that is a crucial first step towards making the police service better. If your organisation is being attacked, denial and deflection are the worst thing you can do. You are simply inviting a more forensic attack. Even silence is better than that. Honest acknowledgement is a great sign of goodwill. But nobody's forcing you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Donuel Date: 02 Jun 17 - 07:09 AM No one would doubt I am sufficiently outraged. Believe me, there was a time when I was not. TAKE HEART, it is the nature of the pendulum to gain oppositional energy as it swings right to eventually swing left again. I am just worried about the Bannon's of the world coming out of the woodwork again and staying in plain sight. A precedent has been established. The next time we hear the cry "It can't happen here" we all will know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:20 AM It's just recently that we've begun to realize that the Republicans have been gerrymandering us out of our popular votes.... What do you mean "WE", Joe? Its been common knowledge for several decades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Rapparee Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:56 AM Joe, you might point out the attacks in Portland, the multi-state killing spree by Pedersen and Grigsby, the shooting by Roof, the attack on Las Vegas police, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shootings, and others. In addition there was violence at Trump and other Rallies going back years. BUT...does this reflect a growing change in American society similar to the riots and demonstrations of the 1960s? There were Left/Right confrontations then as well. Or perhaps it's like the violence of the Couer d'Alene strikes and the Homestead Strike, the Pullman Strike, the Rouge River Strike, and other labor unrest? History is forgotten, as the community memory of the American people rarely last longer than a couple of nanoseconds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jun 17 - 10:24 AM I didn't really know of widespread looting or damage, or injuries. That's because there werent any, Joe. Your son is a bit confused. This isn't necessarily strictly a left/right or Dem/Repub thing its more akin to the violence directed against oreigners by the Know-Nothings[the "American Party"- sound familiar?] or against African Americans during and after "Reconstruction" or the violence directed against Japanese-Americans during WW II, or the continuing violence of white supremecist / neo-Nazi hate groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Donuel Date: 02 Jun 17 - 01:58 PM Greg what the hell are you doing? You should not put people down for learning, they should be praised. Rap is right, Portland has volatile reactions to protests and extremism. The real riots happened after RFK and MLK assassinations. LA is an aberration due to police policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jun 17 - 02:04 PM You should not put people down for learning, WTF are you going on about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jun 17 - 06:28 PM Washington Post columnisdt E.J. Dionne has an interesting column this week titled The anti-Trump right is becoming a breed of its own Says Dionne:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 03 Jun 17 - 08:01 PM Joe, you might also ask your son when was the last time a democrat congressman assaulted a reporter. Conservatives foreswear this nonsense?? Some hope - bullshit is their bread & butter. And no, most folks "on the left" have not resorted to tha arrant bullshit that energizes the Trumpistas. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/politics/white-nationalists-alt-knights-protests-colleges.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 17 - 02:28 AM Greg, you're one of those "on the left" that I'm talking about. Just like the Tea Party Trumpists on the right, you see no purpose in discussion or compromise. You're content with half-truths and conspiracy theories. Yes, believe it or not, there are reasonable conservatives who have good ideas and concerns to contribute to the discussion. "I alone have the truth" is a lie - whether that lie comes from the right, or from the left. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Ebbie Date: 04 Jun 17 - 03:14 AM As Donuel said above, a precedent has been established that is beyond worrisome. Someday - may it be soon! - Trump and his administration will be gone. I hope that we will survive. I have to assume we will. And we'll survive even the next president even if it's Pence or Ryan or McConnel. My question: What comes next? The genie has been let out of the bottle. Will we continue with the precedent that was set in this last election? Will we suffer the candidates of the next elections to wallow in ugliness from now on? (Incidentally, I disagree with the prevailing opinions as to what caused Hillary Clinton's loss. I do believe that Russian interference made her election much more difficult. But judging from my visceral reaction toward the last few months of the campaign, I think she lost because she focused on pointing out Trump's unfitness, instead of hammering home what she would do in office. She should have shrugged off Trump's blustering, in my opinion. In essence, every time she mentioned Trump she advertised him.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 04 Jun 17 - 03:18 AM I admire your stance here Joe, I'm afraid you seem to have got things arse over elbow. " Far too many people on the left have begun to use the same tactics, and that makes things even worse. Neither side has a credible leg to stand on. -Joe- " I think you will find that the huge societal changes promoted by the "liberal left", and the failure of the capitalist system to address the present needs of society, have pushed conservatives into a position where they must fight fire with fire. Conservatives are fighting the same battle within society as the established Church......the pressure for continual ill considered change will never cease, until the reverse Utopia of "liberalism" is attained. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 17 - 04:47 AM "you see no purpose in discussion or compromise. " Compromise requires reciprocation Jo Trump and May and her Brexit band- I don't think so I think the word you appear to be searching for is "appease" Ake and his pack of jackals are perfect examples of how likely compromise is with such people "Come out with your hands out Tommy - for you the war is over" "Compromise" has got us where we are, as we are about to learn in Ireland when the border closes and thirty years of Peace negotiations are flushed down the tubes. Our only gleam of hope is a Labour leader with a conscience and at least France had the cojones to flush LePen down history's toilet - not much, but better than what you've got on your side of the pond Perhaps it might help if you specify what you mean by "compromise" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Jun 17 - 05:53 AM Addenda Discussion needs two sides, not stone-throwers from the sidelines who are "too busy" to involve themselves in debate - or incapable of understanding what is being argued Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 04 Jun 17 - 10:27 AM Greg, you're one of those "on the left" that I'm talking about. No, Joe- I'm not. You may think you "know" me, but you don't. you see no purpose in discussion or compromise. There is no compromise with lies, Joe. Bullshit- as spouted by Twitler and the Trumpistas is bullshit and should be called such and attacked for what it is and the harm it does.. believe it or not, there are reasonable conservatives YA THINK? Jaysus, Joe, believe it or not, I know quite a few and get along wit 'em just fine. Trump and his gang of deplorables are not "conservatives". They're lyng alt-right assholes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 04 Jun 17 - 10:53 AM Arse over elbow? This is another way of saying head over heels but is a little more descriptive. Usually happens after 11pm on a Friday night and too many lagers! I am suitably outraged that this phrase was used by a homophobic scot. What kind of reply was he expecting? I am equally outraged that it may be subliminal trollism, heaven forbid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 04 Jun 17 - 12:07 PM Erse ower tits in Glesca.....ya bass! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jun 17 - 12:51 AM I think we need to find a way to tone down the discussion in all nations. First of all, please let it be known that my two sons are quite reasonable. I raised 'em on rock 'n' roll, and they came out good. It's my nephews on my ex-wife's side that grew up to be Trump supporters, and may god (or the deity of your choice) have mercy on their souls. But yes, there are people on the conservative side who are not enslaved by right-wing extremism or the Tea Party or Trump or UKIP, and we need to hear their concerns. It seems to me that Theresa May might be far more reasonable than some here give her credit for. My understanding is that she opposed Brexit, and yet she is tasked with carrying it out. If that's the case, she may be Britain's last, best hope. The UK needs to conduct the mandated exit gracefully, especially to preserve employment opportunities for Britons who work on the Continent. In the U.S., John McCain and Susan Collins and Lindsay Graham and Nebraska U.S. Senator Ben Sasse are Republicans who have consistently opposed Trump, and we need to look to them as potential allies - Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell will certainly be Republican allies with good international credentials. There are lots of people who could join together to form a New Center, and I think there's great value in shifting power to the center and away from the extremes. Right now, lunacy is in power. We can't survive this unless we bring things back to the center. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 05 Jun 17 - 02:37 AM Sensible conservatism is "the centre"......for the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Donuel Date: 05 Jun 17 - 01:32 PM Ake, Joe just finished telling you that Trump is not sensible except for self enrichment. All I know is Trump is not the center of anything truthful or sensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Jun 17 - 01:48 PM The OP refers to outrage at terror attacks. Some of us were expressing outrage at an unprecedented series of mass murder terror attacks in London and Manchester which we are told is likely the pattern for our future. It is by far the most dominant issue in Britain now, even eclipsing our election except that is has become the main issue in that too. But, it has been decreed that we may not argue it on this forum. I say argue rather than discuss because it is such an emotive and important subject that inevitably the discussion becomes intense. I think it should be allowed though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 05 Jun 17 - 02:14 PM Get a f**king life as a sentient being, Professor, or at least gain functional literacy in the English language. The OP said NOTHING about "terror attacks". Are you a complete idiot, or are you just bring an ignorant pain in the arse for entertainment purposes? In addition, owhere has it been "decreed that we may not argue it on this forum". JESUS your nonsense and bullshit is infuriating. And boring! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jack Campin Date: 05 Jun 17 - 02:14 PM if the Muslims don't support this violence, they say, why aren't they outraged and why don't they issue statements condemning the violence? Muslims are far more likely to be the victims of such violence than anybody else, so what the fuck would you expect them to say? Read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/isis-terrorism-pakistan-donald-trump-media-press-a7585461.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Thompson Date: 05 Jun 17 - 02:23 PM People often decide to hate some particular minority. There's never any logic to it. If you're a member of that minority you're expected to feel responsible for anything any member of the same minority does, no matter whether you do it or not, and you're expected to denounce "your people" for doing it. Damn cyclists, they're always breaking red lights… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 05 Jun 17 - 03:54 PM "Damn cyclists, they're always breaking red lights…" Come come Thompson not all cyclist are red light breakers, that's as bad as saying that woodchopping is finished for the day and all Mudcatters have axes to grind [appropriate smiley] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 05 Jun 17 - 03:58 PM Amazing animals "liberals", they will find a way of excusing any barbarity perpetrated by any minority, yet despise and denigrate a majority over semantics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Jun 17 - 04:05 PM With respect, Joe, you don't appear to have a particularly sound grasp of UK politics. I give you credit for not pontificating at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jack Campin Date: 05 Jun 17 - 07:01 PM If you're a member of that minority you're expected to feel responsible for anything any member of the same minority does, no matter whether you do it or not, and you're expected to denounce "your people" for doing it. And in this case one of them actually WARNED about the guy - and was ignored (presumably because the killer was an MI5 asset): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40159360/they-didn-t-get-back-to-me |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jun 17 - 07:35 PM Steve Shaw says: With respect, Joe, you don't appear to have a particularly sound grasp of UK politics. I hate it when people say I'm ignorant, and then give no specific information to back it up. What am I supposed to say in response? Oh, yes, Steve, I'm ignorant, and I grovel at your feet. Don't know why, but I guess that's what I'm supposed to do. I do believe I'm safe in thinking that compared to Nigel Farage (or to Donald Trump), Theresa May seems to be quite reasonable. Keith A. says: The OP refers to outrage at terror attacks. In his usual fashion, Greg F sez: The OP said NOTHING about "terror attacks". But I'm the one who wrote the OP. My first point was my nephew's complaint that liberals were not appropriately outraged at violence that took place at anti-Trump demonstrations. I compared this to complaints that Muslims were not appropriately outraged by terrorist attacks (so Keith is correct, although terrorist attacks were not my main point). And the main thing I'm trying to point out is that it is unfair to try to gauge and judge the amount of outrage (or lack thereof) that another person or group feels and expresses in reaction to an event. To say that another party supports an atrocity because that other has not expressed appropriate outrage, is a lie. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 05 Jun 17 - 07:48 PM In his usual fashion, Greg F sez: The OP said NOTHING about "terror attacks". Yup, Joe, in my usual fashion, I state fact. The Professor's spin notwithstanding. Do you have some sort of problem with that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Jun 17 - 08:03 PM You're being very defensive, Joe, despite my being quite gentle with you. You really don't understand how incompetent and ideologically-led Theresa May really is. Do delve a little deeper. You'll be amazed at what you find out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jun 17 - 08:16 PM Yup, Greg, I talked about "terrorist attacks" in the first post, not "terror attacks." Is that your point? Don't know that I'm being all that defensive, Steve. I merely dared to question your failure to provide evidence to back up your assertions. Do I take it, then, that you would prefer to be led by Nigel Farage? You're right that I don't know a whole lot about Theresa May. Please provide enlightenment, not merely assertions. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jack Campin Date: 05 Jun 17 - 08:57 PM It really isn't very difficult to find out more about May (and her hubby). I've passed on quite a lot of links via FB and if you track back to where I got them you will find out a lot more. She is every bit as corrupt as the worst of Trump's gang. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jun 17 - 04:04 AM Jack, And in this case one of them actually WARNED about the guy - and was ignored (presumably because the killer was an MI5 asset): No. The warning was that he had extremists views and sympathised with the militants. That is not a crime so no action could be taken except to add him to the list of 23000 others also reported to have such views. The other two killers were not even on that list! The sad fact is that there are far more terrorist sympathisers than can ever possibly be monitored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Jun 17 - 05:33 AM "than can ever possibly be monitored." Not for the want of trying, of course. HAS THERESA MAY REALLY CUT THE UK'S POLICE NUMBERS? Q&A HELEN WARRELL British prime minister Theresa May has come under fire for cutting police numbers while she was home secretary, with her critics contending in the wake of three recent attacks that the UK's ability to fight terrorism has been compromised by a lack of resources. Did police numbers fall while Theresa May was home secretary? Yes. The number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 18,991, or 13 per cent, between September 2010 and September 2016, according to the home office. Separate statistics show the number of authorised firearms officers fell by 19 per cent to 5,639 between March 2010 and March 2016. Karen Bradley, culture secretary and a former home office minister, explained yesterday: "We've seen reductions in police officers across the board, we had to take difficult decisions in 2010 when we came into office when, as you remember, there was no money." Did they decide to cut police numbers because crime fell? No, the cuts were made as part of the government's austerity programme. Overall police budgets were cut by more than 20 per cent between 2010 and 2015. From 2015 onwards, the policing budget has been protected in real terms. During the Conservatives' time in office, funding for counter-terror policing has been ringfenced and increased in line with inflation. But the fall in crime to a 30-year low on May's watch did make the cuts easier to justify. More recently, this has become harder to argue. An increase in knife and gun violence,particularly in London, has raised concerns that the overall drop in crime may not continue. Also, the Office for National Statistics has only just started to include fraud and cyber crime in its headline crime numbers. The first set of crime statistics to reflect this change, published in January, brought the estimated total number of crimes to 11.8 million, up from 6.6 million the year before. This could reflect the fact that while it appeared to be falling, crime has instead been shifting into the virtual world. Would recruiting more officers help to dea I with the terror threat? Some police chiefs think so. Cressida Dick, head of the Metropolitan Police, said: "I think it's appropriate for us all to look at the amount of resource the police have, both the counter-terrorism police but also our neighbourhood officers." Dick's focus on the importance of local policing reflects the concerns of other police chiefs that forces are losing access to intelligence about potentially dangerous individuals within their communities. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has seized on such criticisms, and has even called on the prime minister to resign because of her role in cutting police numbers while home secretary. May hit back by denying that reduced resources were weakening the police response to terror. "We have protected counter-terrorism policing budgets, we have also provided funding for an increase in the number of armed police offiqers and, since 2015, we have protected overall police budgets," she said. She added that the response to terrorism was not just about police numbers but the powers that police have to deal with terror suspects, which she said had "increased". The Financial• Times Limited 2017 The claims of an increase in support for terrorism is deliberate utter alarmist nonsense aimed at generating suspicion towards an overwhelmingly law-abiding and passive community. Nobody has the faintest idea how many of them are sympathetic towards terrorism and we never will have until a properly conducted investigation devoid of racist agendas is carried out You are at it again Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jun 17 - 06:21 AM Jim, The claims of an increase in support for terrorism is deliberate utter alarmist nonsense I gave the official figures and made nothing up. What do you dispute? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/security-mi5-23000-subjects-interest-counter-terrorism-manchester-abedi-police-a7758671.html It is said to require a team of 30 to maintain full time surveillance on one, so 23 000 would need 690 000! That is more then triple the entire Police Force of 2010! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Iains Date: 06 Jun 17 - 02:47 PM Joe. To play Devil's Advocate, do not many Muslims in the Middle East have a reason to be outraged by the aftermath of the Arab Spring? Not only is there a religious battle by Saudi and Iranian proxies, but the western Alliance is funding training and arming certain groups that add further instability and casualties in a bloody war in several countries in order to prolong the mayhem. We in the western world seem to be doing nothing other than handwringing, bleat about human rights when uncontrolled immigration occurs from these same countries, and act astounded when terrorist activities occur in Europe. Meanwhile the western military industrial complex girds their loins for the ensuing even juicier contracts for yet more weapons. The unfortunate term used for the atrocities in Europe is blowback,yet another innocuous term like collateral damage. There is no way such behaviour can be condoned but it can be understood what may cause it. As we collectively elected the governments that initially created this hell on earth, then they act in our name-distasteful though this may seem. We do not like terrorists among us We do not like the ever increasing death toll especially in the Middle East We do like to wring our hands. We do not like to protest.(unlike ban the bomb campaigns and anti Vietnam protests of the past) We collectively are responsible. As I said on another post and promptly got shot down in flames:- "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." We are doing nothing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Jun 17 - 08:18 PM Just come back from my mum and dad's. I was hobnobbing around Bury quite a lot and I saw lots of "One love Manchester" with hearts posters everywhere, stuck on walls and tied to railings. The local Beeb news was full of the Ariana Grande concert at Old Trafford. I thought the reaction of local people was wonderful and that the concert was a smashing and really appropriate idea (though I won't be buying any of the artists' CDs!). I saw Theresa May responding to the horrid recent events with unimaginative trottings-out of the outrage and aggressive fighting talk she thought people wanted to hear. I saw the people of Bury and Manchester responding with a tough, positive spirit, with love and with inclusivity, not a scrap of the outrage that was surely in their souls on display. I think I know which approach will do more good. Outrage is rather easily confected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Donuel Date: 06 Jun 17 - 10:05 PM We have met the enemy and it is us. As for them, they too have met the same enemy and us. Blowback is a sanitized word but true in meaning. The conflict is not just a religious confrontation, it is also an economic war by fools for fuel in a region I call Ethniclashistan. Regime change in Iran was the ultimate election rigging. Arming both sides of a conflict that killed 1.5 million kids.(an entire generation) is also our idea to lead from behind. etc While Obama tried to extricate our troops from the region, Donald is reversing all that. He has reversed our Paris accord and federal alternate fuel strategies. The blowback from this will be the ultimate blowback - Climate change and extinction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:42 AM I think I know which approach will do more good What actual good will vigils and concerts do, admirable though they are? The people busy plotting the next atrocity will laugh at the threat of being loved. There is much talk of not letting the terrorists win, while doing nothing to actually stop them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:59 AM What actual good will vigils and concerts do, admirable though they are? They are known to do the victims, their families and anyone else affected lots of good. What do you dispute about that? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 07 Jun 17 - 03:21 AM False sense of security? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jun 17 - 04:53 AM What good has your attitude to the political issues that foment terrorism ever done, Keith? People like you aren't just part of the problem, they ARE the problem. The concert and posters on the other hand bring people together. No room for hate and division just for a little while. I call that a good step and I don't care if it's only a little one. As for false senses of security, well I don't think that anyone who went to that concert thought that it would make them safer. Aim your cynicism in a different direction, both of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 17 - 09:21 AM Dave, They are known to do the victims, their families and anyone else affected lots of good. What do you dispute about that? I do not dispute any of that. They are admirable for making victims feel better, but no good at all for saving future victims. Steve, What good has your attitude to the political issues that foment terrorism ever done, Keith? None. No-one's attitudes can help. What is needed are actual measures put in place to stop more of these atrocities. No room for hate and division just for a little while Rubbish. The extremists will not stop hating because of vigils and concerts. The concerts actually make them hate us more. I call that a good step and I don't care if it's only a little one. It is not even a small step. It does not reduce the danger one iota. It does nothing against those planning attacks. I don't think that anyone who went to that concert thought that it would make them safer. Right!. They deserve something that does. What do you and Dave dispute about that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jun 17 - 09:45 AM You asked specifically What actual good will vigils and concerts do, admirable though they are? and I responded that they do lots of people good. You do not dispute that so what is the problem? Everyone deserves to be made safer but not at any cost. WTF are you on about and what would YOU do to make them safer? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jun 17 - 09:47 AM Joe - Told you that Godwins law should have been invoked at the first mention of Nazis. It is not too late to close this before it gets completely bogged down by inane arguments :-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 17 - 11:35 AM Dave, You asked specifically What actual good will vigils and concerts do, admirable though they are? I suspect only you failed to grasp why I thought them "admirable," and that I was referring to security when I stated they do no "actual good." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jun 17 - 11:59 AM Which shows that YOU fail to grasp the appropriate use of the English language. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jun 17 - 12:29 PM I suspect not. I also suspect that you are now trying to say that you did not mean something that you obviously said. Again. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:05 PM Steve, Which shows that YOU fail to grasp the appropriate use of the English language. No, it shows that Dave does. Dave, I suspect not. I also suspect that you are now trying to say that you did not mean something that you obviously said. Again. No Dave. I said what I meant and stand by it. Those events are "admirable" for the feel good they provide, but on the issue of security, which is what I have been discussing from the start, they do no good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Greg F. Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:35 PM Well, considering several of the posts on this thread, to ask "Wher's the brain death"??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jun 17 - 03:31 PM So then, I ask again, what would YOU do to make us safer Keith? Discuss the finer points of language? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jun 17 - 06:20 PM "Those events are "admirable" for the feel good they provide, but on the issue of security, which is what I have been discussing from the start, they do no good." What a patronising git. So inhuman. So remote from the people of Manchester. So spuriously "objective." You pillock. How DARE you put "admirable" in speech marks? How DARE you patronise the people of Manchester from your leafy, complacent bit of Tory suburbia so remote from the realities of working people's lives? Is it just young people and their working-class mums and dads who fall prey to what you perceive as pop music "feel good?" I'll tell you what. Come up to Manchester with your appallingly condescending attitude and we'll take you and people like you to pieces. You haven't a bloody clue. Why don't you just crawl away and evaporate? Please?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: bobad Date: 07 Jun 17 - 08:08 PM "Wher's the brain death"??? Jeez Greg, talk about setting yourself up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 08 Jun 17 - 02:51 AM I am absolutely certain, that if this atrocity had been committed in Glasgow the attempted ticket fraud involving over ten thousand people would never have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:12 AM And I'm absolutely certain that you are acting like a heartless, brainless, useless prick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:19 AM Steve, How DARE you put "admirable" in speech marks? I put it in quotes because I was quoting my usage of the word. I said those events were "admirable," but they did nothing to protect against further attacks. Dave said, "They are known to do the victims, their families and anyone else affected lots of good. What do you dispute about that?" I replied, "I do not dispute any of that. They are admirable for making victims feel better, but no good at all for saving future victims." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:20 AM You got the Manchester thread closed with your stupidity, ake. You are trying you best on this one but as it it Joe's thread I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Basically, what you are saying is that the folk of Manchester are a bunch of criminals while those from Glasgow are not. Yes? You really are a serial gobshite. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:30 AM Steve, "heartless, brainless, useless prick." "patronising git. So inhuman" As ever when you lose an argument, you resort to abuse and vacuous name calling. There could hardly be a more sombre and grave issue than this. Serious discussion is what is required. Are you incapable of that Steve? (My step daughter and her young family from Chorlton stayed with us after the attack. She is sporting a new worker bee tattoo. She was working in Marks when the IRA bombed the place.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 04:06 AM Serious discussion is what is required. And you agree that calling the people of Manchester criminals after they have suffered an outrageous attack is part of that serious discussion? Different morality Different language Different planet DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:57 AM Your silly little litany reappears Dave. You post it whenever you lose an argument. There are no issues here of morality, language or interplanetary travel, and I do not call anyone criminals. What are you on about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:07 AM "That is more then triple the entire Police Force of 2010!" Then where are your comments on the fact that Mayfly has actually reduced security force numbers We have no idea of what qualifies being a "suspect" - from the number of actual arrests and charges, it appears to be "suspicion by association". We do know that at least two of the perpetrators have been know to the police and ignored - a sign of how serious the threat is being taken by them upstairs We also know that two of Britain's arms customers, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have been directly linked to support for terrorism - Qatar has been ostracised by several Muslim States and Saudi was linked to 9/11 - and the trade goes on Your arguments might just be more convincing if you didn't choose to ignore those facts but rather, chose to create an "enemy within" atmosphere. But there you go - agenda-drivers will be agenda-drivers, and there is an election on Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:17 AM If you think I said that about akenaton because I lost an argument with him I feel bloody sorry for you Keith. I assume it means that you also think that all Mancunians are criminals and all weegies are saints. And that I lost that argument. Go and have a lie down, Keith. 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:21 AM You didn't Keith but ake did and it was that the Steve was referring to. Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton - PM Date: 08 Jun 17 - 02:51 AM I am absolutely certain, that if this atrocity had been committed in Glasgow the attempted ticket fraud involving over ten thousand people would never have happened. It started here. Do keep up. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:28 AM Jim, Then where are your comments on the fact that Mayfly has actually reduced security force numbers Teribus and I both did. I pointed out that the reductions were made because non-terrorist crime was falling and continues to fall. She increased funding for anti-terror security. We do know that at least two of the perpetrators have been know to the police and ignored - a sign of how serious the threat is being taken by them upstairs No. It is a sign that security forces are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people identified as a danger. 23 000 that they know of. The law as it stands prevents anything being done about them. chose to create an "enemy within" atmosphere. That atmosphere is created by the mass murder terror attacks launched by people who are indeed an enemy, and within Britain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:31 AM Hey - I seem to have made you THE Steve again Steve :-) Maybe my spill chucker knows something that I don't. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:55 AM I'd rather be called THE Steve Shaw than THAT Steve Shaw, Dave! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: akenaton Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:14 AM I did not say that all people from Manchester were criminals. There were over ten thousand false applications for tickets for the second show, not all of these criminals were from Manchester, but I suppose a large number were. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:25 AM Perhaps we can now treat this grave issue with the serious discussion appropriate to it. Abuse and name calling elsewhere please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:54 AM not all of these criminals were from Manchester, but I suppose a large number were. Why on earth would you suppose that I wonder? Do you have any justification for it? Any figures to back it up? Perhaps we can now treat this grave issue with the serious discussion appropriate to it. This 'serious discussion' was started by Joe Offer about riots in the USA and how to react. It has been subsumed into a discussion about terror attacks in the UK by people who are still stinging from the closure of the Manchester and London threads because of comments like ake's. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 08:13 AM In case anyone missed it, this was ake's comment on the Manchester tragedy. Subject: RE: Manchester Explosion May 22, 2017 From: akenaton - PM Date: 03 Jun 17 - 07:23 AM Anyway, its a bit rich taking us anti terrorists to task for being disrespectful to the dead, when over 10000 "Mancunians" falsely applied for free tickets (reserved for people who attended the Grande concert) to give admission to a second Concert. Now that's what I call disrespect!! You can take the lad out of Manchester, but you can't take Manchester out of the lad...EH? Nice ... EH? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jun 17 - 11:11 AM Dave, it would really help if you could move on, or leave if you can't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jun 17 - 12:07 PM Dave, it would really help if you could move on, or leave if you can't. It would really help you and ake, Keith. So excuse me if I don't take your advice :-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jun 17 - 12:24 PM "No. It is a sign that security forces are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people identified as a danger." Ignoring the threat of possible terrorists has more to do with budget cutting - as the financial time points out quite clearly and specifically - cheeseparing based on budget rather than security This is confirmed by the Government's readiness to sell arms to States implicated in financing extremism (which you choose to ignore) "Dave, it would really help if you could move on, or leave if you can't." And it would be more helpful if those with no authority stopped attempting to pretend they had Ake's disgusting accusation of ticket touting is little better than the Hillsborough affair where the fans "looting the bodies of the dead" was used to divert from the incompetence of the police. It took seventeen years to sort out that one Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Outrage? From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 17 - 01:06 PM Now it's the same old infighting. Guess it's time to close the thread. |