• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Manchester Arena explosion: 22 killed in 'terror attack by suicide bomber' at concer

Is it true that she has offered to pay for the funerals of the 22 victims?
 
spacejunk said:
No time for healing, just straight to the vengeance and bloodlust eh?

I think there are a lot of disturbing sentiments in this thread. I guess that's expected in the context of a really horrifying event.
But saying "mourning will achieve nothing" is just cold.
Click to expand...
Get used to it, even my mother calls me a robot.
 
Ye she going to pay for all the funerals.
I know your fuckin about but she just a kid herself and this could really affect her badly.

Durzo got a point sj, putting a flag on your Fb profile doesn't do shit.
Turn off the light on the Eiffel Tower? What does that change?

The greater show of respect and solidarity would to put on the news that loads of terror suspects have been deported or imprisoned. That would make people feel better than a Fb gimmick.
 
Yes, but it isn't the point i addressed, so i don't see why you're including it in your reply to me.
I'm not talking about superficial public displays of grief. I don't go in for tokenistic stuff either, but if it helps people cope, then i'm not going to judge them for it.
Either way, it isn't what i was discussing. I'm not talking about social media.

I mentioned healing, because that's important when people are traumatised by something like this.

I'm suggesting that people try take some time to take a breathe and process things before jumping straight into an emotional political debate.
I'm perhaps very jaded but i think a lot of people far to the right end of the spectrum exploit terrorist atrocities - almost like they savour it when they get a chance to sing from the anti-islam songbook - which i think is really distasteful.

People are in shock. People are grieving.

It would be nice if folks here and elsewhere online respected and acknowledged that before making suggestions about "solutions" and a whole bunch of vague dogwhistling crap about deporting people, banning books and other hardline authoritarian measures.
 
Last edited:
Take some time before engaging in emotional political debates?
Like the one you've been involved in all day?
Why is it others should take time but not you?
 
Because i'm not one of the people calling for a police state - nor am i using the deaths of 22 innocent people to say "this is how we should fix it" - then proposing a series of hardline government crackdowns on civil liberties, and state sanctioned "force".

I'm one of the few people that has bothered making counter-arguments to the same posters that do this every time there is a terrorist attack, because it's tedious.
I don't debate this crap because i think i can change the minds of the people i'm responding to; i just don't like seeing ugly crap go unopposed on the forum.
Things i consider ugly - bigotry, advocating authoritarianism, that kind of thing.
 
Your views are tedious too, same thing over and over. More worried about human rights of terrorists than innocent people being murdered.
What wrong with arresting and punishing Isis supporters or cracking down on terrorist related information on the net etc.

Your engaging in the debate too the same as everyone so stop kidding yourself.
 
Soso78 said:
More worried about human rights of terrorists than innocent people being murdered.
Click to expand...
that's a convenient characterization but it's also a false dilemma and, imo, pretty lazy and just erroneous.

a lot of people - and i am not saying you are one of them - pay lip service to rights but throw them out the window the moment a case with which they struggle comes along. that is, people who seem to support the idea of these freedoms in principle but, when a hard case comes along, that all falls apart.

it's easy to talk about due process and innocence-until-proven-guilty when somebody's stolen a pack of smokes. it only becomes truly meaningful when you extend the same rights to somebody who carries out a terrorist act against the very country which extends him due process and murders a bunch of kids in the process.

also, it does not require doublethink to be concerned about the importance of civil rights and also care about 'innocent' people being murdered and to suggest otherwise is fallacious.

alasdair
 
What you in about now?^^
You going to have to spell it out mate because I'm not sure what your point is?
 
All of it, simplify it.
Are you saying I think there should be no due process or innocent until proven guilty?
 
i had two main points:

1. you seem to be suggesting that it's not possible to both care about rights (including those of terrorists who commit atrocious crimes) and care about the victims. i disagree - i think it's quite possible to care about both (at the same time).

2. i am saying that there should be due process and presumption of innocence even for terrorists who commit atrocious crimes. you seem to imply otherwise.

alasdair
 
I agree with both your points, never have I said innocent people should be punished.
Once proven guilty though punishments should be more severe than simply being put on a watch list, which in reality no one is watching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top