BTR:

 

networkn:

 

BTR:

 

 Its a mess and religion is the primary cause whether you want to admit it or not. 

 

 

 

 

Intolerance is the cause.

 

 

 

 

Yes I agree somewhat and I personally don't have any issue with religion BUT when its pushed on someone or you are seen as an infidel because you do not follow someone else religion that there is the problem. Intolerance is the problem but religion is the cause.

 

 

 

Religion isn't a problem if intolerance isn't an issue. I believe people are overly sensitive about Religion, it gets a pretty bad rap. Some is justified, there are some crazies out there, but those people would find another outlet for their crazy if religion wasn't a thing. 

I think Religion is responsible for far more good, than bad in the world, even taking into account some of the terrible things done in the name of religion (insert chosen one here). A lot of hope, kindness, generosity, and comfort is gained from it. The problem with "bad things" (tm) is that they are generally so much more visible. 

My Grandfather told me this awesome thing once. He said if good is a bowl of clean fresh crystal clear water, and bad is black ink, it takes a LOT of clean water to dilute 1 drop of black ink.

For some reference, I was raised very religious, but am no longer. I do abide by the ethos of treating people the way you'd like them to treat you and this I attribute to the positive side of being raised religious (though I accept it's possible people can grow up with this without religion).

Intolerance is the cause of pretty much all of the worlds issue. If you remove religion, people will find something else to be intolerant toward and vent their frustrations at and commit atrocious acts in the name of. 

Humans are parasites, we have little or no self-control. 

networkn:

 

nakedmolerat:

 

SJB:

 

PM May now in full public relations mode putting troops at key events and locations apparently...

 

 

Election is just around the corner. She needs to play her cards right.

 

 

 

 

That comment borders on trolling. 

 

People need to feel reassured, I believe a majority of people, obviously excluding you, feel safer when there is increased authoritarian presence after something like this. It does also probably make it marginally harder to attack when armed and trained officers are

 

on high alert. Perception helps restore normality.

 

Actually I think TM was the right choice as PM although she has had the odd slip up during the election campaign.

IMO soldiers on the streets does not reassure people or help to restore normality. It suggests that it is dangerous to be out and about. 

SJB:

 

 

 

Actually I think TM was the right choice as PM although she has had the odd slip up during the election campaign.

 

IMO soldiers on the streets does not reassure people or help to restore normality. It suggests that it is dangerous to be out and about. 

 

Soldiers on the streets long term will cause that feeling I guess, but in the short term, it will help people feel protected.

The bottom line is, it IS probably more dangerous to be out an about today.

SJB:

 

PM May now in full public relations mode putting troops at key events and locations apparently. That would not make me feel one iota safer.

 

Was that even done when the IRA were blowing people up?

 

There's a need to keep things in proportion. It was a terrible event for those involved but you are far more likely to be struck by lightning 3 times than be involved in a terrorist incident in the UK.

 

TBH I'd be more worried about being mugged in central London than getting blown up.

 

 

 

Err evidence to support your claim that you're more likely to be hit by lightning 3 times than involved in a terror incident in the UK please? 

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Englishman".

 

He may have a British passport but that isn't the same thing to many of us.

 

 

Perhaps that is part of the problem. If you grow up feeling like an outcast maybe it makes you resentful. Not that there is any excuse for doing such a thing, but if there is to be any hope of preventing it in the future, there has to be understanding of where this comes form.

 

It's a vicious circle though, isn't it? Every time yet another muslim commits yet another act of mass murder like this, affected people are likely to feel more and more alienated from anyone who calls themselves a muslim. 

networkn:

 

SJB:

 

PM May now in full public relations mode putting troops at key events and locations apparently. That would not make me feel one iota safer.

 

Was that even done when the IRA were blowing people up?

 

There's a need to keep things in proportion. It was a terrible event for those involved but you are far more likely to be struck by lightning 3 times than be involved in a terrorist incident in the UK.

 

TBH I'd be more worried about being mugged in central London than getting blown up.

 

 

 

 

Err evidence to support your claim that you're more likely to be hit by lightning 3 times than involved in a terror incident in the UK please? 

 

 

 

I can't find the original figures but in 2014 in the UK the chances of being killed by lightning were estimated at just over 10 million to 1 as 5 people are killed every year.

Worldwide in the same year the chances of being killed by a terrorist attack were 9.3 million to 1 but that was from 651 terrorist attacks that killed 2,000 people. There have been no significant terrorist attacks in the UK before this year since 2007 AFAIK so my figure of 3 times is possibly much too low. Of course terrorist attacks may become more frequent so the odds could change.

Figures from here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-die-282884

Yes it's the Daily Mirror but there is no indication they made the figures up to support any particular point of view.

Geektastic:

 

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Englishman".

 

He may have a British passport but that isn't the same thing to many of us.

 

Perhaps you could define for us what an "Englishman" is?

dafman:

 

For every 'evil' person you successfully bomb from high, you create two or more new recruits from the aftermath.

 

Agree to a point, but you can win by killing, you just simply have to beat them at their own game and "out evil" them. The western world doesn't have the stomach for total war where entire cities, tribes, countries, or religions are wiped out however. 

Exactly I wonder how Rome would have responded to terrorists attack back in the day.

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Englishman".

 

He may have a British passport but that isn't the same thing to many of us.

 

 

Perhaps you could define for us what an "Englishman" is?

 

 

 

cruxis:

 

Exactly I wonder how Rome would have responded to terrorists attack back in the day.

 

Crucifixion.

The impact of the crucifixion of one anti-government but pacifist sh1t-stirrer has persisted for 2,000 years.

Fred99:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Englishman".

 

He may have a British passport but that isn't the same thing to many of us.

 

 

Perhaps you could define for us what an "Englishman" is?

 

 

 

 

 

Loved Alf Garnett. And so correct he was!

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "Englishman".

 

He may have a British passport but that isn't the same thing to many of us.

 

 

Perhaps you could define for us what an "Englishman" is?

 

 

 

My personal definition? Your family needs to have been there in 1945. 

Fred99:

 

cruxis:

 

Exactly I wonder how Rome would have responded to terrorists attack back in the day.

 

 

Crucifixion.

 

The impact of the crucifixion of one anti-government but pacifist sh1t-stirrer has persisted for 2,000 years.

 

Although the impact of tens of thousands of other crucifixions hasn't!

Lias:

 

dafman:

 

For every 'evil' person you successfully bomb from high, you create two or more new recruits from the aftermath.

 

 

Agree to a point, but you can win by killing, you just simply have to beat them at their own game and "out evil" them. The western world doesn't have the stomach for total war where entire cities, tribes, countries, or religions are wiped out however. 

 

Probably because total war where entire cities, tribes, countries, or religions are wiped out would entail significant innocent casualties. And that would require a western world as evil as the evil it was fighting against.