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

[Soso78]

Think someone's hacked swillow account!!! Can a mod please look into it??

 

[zephyr]

^If cameras were in mosques, extremists would just find somewhere else to plot their global caliphate. Its a short term solution which, again, may have unforseen consequences. How loyal would you feel to a country that believes spying on you at prayer is reasonable?

Put them in churches too, might stop the abuse of children. And everywhere else too because humans cannot be trusted.

Unfortunately its been proven weapons have exchanged hands in that area of the mosque by men who knew they were not being watched there.

Therefore because this has happened the womens sanctity has been violated by men who took full advantage .

It is not the police's fault should they need to bug the womens area the same as any other.

Muslim women would lose their privacy because of the men and no other reason .


A police worker died as the kid got the gun in this way. Its better to learn from this than let it continue

 

[zephyr]

Think someone's hacked swillow account!!! Can a mod please look into it?��

Lol! See ! Opposing views are working together!

We can do this! Discuss as adults!


Mummys so proud of you kiddies

 

[zephyr]

^If cameras were in mosques, extremists would just find somewhere else to plot their global caliphate. Its a short term solution which, again, may have unforseen consequences. How loyal would you feel to a country that believes spying on you at prayer is reasonable?

Put them in churches too, might stop the abuse of children. And everywhere else too because humans cannot be trusted.

Yes cameras everywhwre mate. No area should be out of bounds and includes sosos bedroom may as well gave some fun too hee hee

 

[-=SS=-]

I understand the prinicple of innocent until proven guilty. What I was saying is that it "could" be extended to non-citizens in regards to immigration matters.

I've never advocated open borders or no screening process. I believe that anyone entering a country needs to be vetted in the most comprehensive manner possible. However, I also accept that people fleeing a war zone may not have documentation. I'm not sure what to do in this circumstance, but I believe it is best to apply the benefit of the doubt. Because most immigrants are not terrorists, and most of the current wave of terrorists are actually already citizens.

If you start to change your policies because of terrorists, you are allowing terrorists a role in determining your countries future. I do not understand why you would want this and why you would give into them. They deplore our lifestyle, don't they? They want us to concede their power. I don't want to do that and I don't want my country to do that.

The terrorists are already influencing policy decisions in this country, that is a natural outcome of cause and effect.. we have to respond to threats and implement steps to mitigate or neutralize the dangers. That does not mean they made us do anything. The only transferal of power I see is when you say there is. All I see is our society taking steps to counter a threat. What are we supposed to do, Swillow? Just do nothing? We have to take actions and enact legislation or whatever, that doesn't mean the terrorists have done that. We take steps against other threats, like the climate or diseases, and in all cases it doesn't mean we gave any power away. I don't really get why you (and the media say this too) that we're "giving the terrorists what they want". The terrorists want to destroy our culture, which is what will happen if we don't act and destroy them.

Most immigrants are not terrorists, no. But this is not a typical set of circumstances. We would not be admitting people blindly from a nation that had a disease epidemic like ebola for example. We have the right to be more guarded when circumstances dictate we need to be. This is such a time, for people coming from the ME or Northern Africa. There is absolutely no need to be offended or up in arms by that.. I just can't wrap my head around the emotional hysteria that says we have to drop all discrimination because it might offend someone or runs contrary to our "values of tolerance" or whatever. It's ridiculous.

There is nothing to say we can't revoke legislation or policies once the situation changes again, and I think people forget that. It's not like all roads like to Nazi Germany therefore we have to make no steps at all and be paralyzed. Again the hysteria surrounding the notion of taking prudent and effective moves to protect ourselves, it's bordering on insanity!

II was more referring to the fact that this terrorist was not part of the current wave of immigration across Europe, and therefore having different immigration policy contemporaneously would not have helped.

No that's true. However ISIS did state quite clearly they would use the refugee wave to smuggle fighters into the EU, hence right now we do need to be extra discriminatory.. we have to take their threat seriously.

I'm not apologising for acts of violence which I utterly abhor, nor am I entirely blaming our system for this. That is a simplistic view because there are multiple factors at play. I am certain that restriction on Muslim immigration and cultural segregation could be a contributing factor to push current Muslim citizens further towards anti-west views. This is not about blaming anyone or anything, its about being pragmatic and understanding a bit of human psychology. I would probably feel angered if I was being blamed and effectively punished for the actions of complete strangers; wouldn't you? However, I guess neither of us would get angry enough to religiously justify mass murder. I don't think this is really the main reason for Islamic terrorism; the main reason is probably Islamic cultures' attempts to hang onto their culture and values in the face of continual intervention in their homelands by western powers (and you should understand that urge to hang onto a dying culture, right?). Unfortuantely, their religion is used to justify violence, like all religions. I think efforts need to be made to deradicalise Islam in the mosques (as I've already mentioned), to get it to the place Chistianity has devolved into (thankfully) and to create a safe homeland that citizens do not want to flee from.

No, I would not. Maybe when I was younger and did not have the wisdom of adulthood and life experience that I have now at 30. And I believe you being an intelligent individual would likewise understand. Yes it would suck, but I would understand this nation or society owes me nothing, it has every right to do what it needs to do to protect itself.. simplified, I would respect that demonstration of power. There is a difference between being outright attacked and being pushed away defensively.

I don't agree with the notion that this is all happening solely because of Western intervention in their nations, which is what Corbyn is suggesting. This has been going on before that. Nor is their culture being destroyed or facing existential threat.

IBut humans are constantly rejecting natural impulses and behaviours; its part of the great mess we call civilisation. Some of our tendencies are less useful when you apply reason to them. IMO, racial bias is unreasonable, because science has told us that there are no major differences in the actual makeup of humans from different ethnicities. This means that an instinctive, instant racial bias is not based on anything concrete, but is based on something precognitive and a misperception of reality.

Now I do disagree with your premise here. To say we're suffering from a 'misperception' because science has deemed us to be genetically identical isn't a solid argument - our propensity towards certain behaviours are not solely rooted in just genetics or pure physicality. Yes on paper we may look the same, but in actuality we are not. Families have certain states of minds, as do workplaces or any groupings, and so do too entire races. It's can be subtle, but it is there. You can't measure what I'm referring to using scientific instrumentation but you can see the outcome of it in decision or actions taken, and patterns of behaviour.

IYou think that this should be the way it is, but the majority of people reject this, and have to, because multiculturalism isn't going away. I mean, the British Empire started this by conquering all sorts of societies by force and for profit. Unfortunately, we now have to deal with the consequences. The way you want things to be are not the way they are and you need to adjust to this fact, not me.

Please don't bring the British Empire conquering argument into this. It happened. If we didn't do it someone else would have. It's nature - it's called being the strongest and taking the initiative. But from it great things arose also that were not in place before - it was all part of the evolution of human society.

IYeah, but what are "we"? Are you clinging to something totally transient like contemporary cultural values and assuming that these actually mean something? What is British culture to you? What is it you are protecting?

I don't think I can answer this without an essay of a post and it would diverge too much from our already diverging dialogue. All I will say is that we have something worth protecting, that it has been in decline long before I was born, and whether it can be saved or not I'm highly doubtful, which is a shame because once it's not coming back and that would be a detriment to wider human society

(don't deny it, I know you love mushy peas)

I bloody hate mushy peas

 

[Somerandomdude]

Listening to some of the impotent drivel from the likes of swilow makes me sick. So much pussyfooting and umm and ahhing about this whole topic.

Serious action needs to be taken. It starts with a drastic reduction in Muslim immigration. We need to focus on integrating the ones here. A total ban is too inflammatory and becomes big news. Just slow it down to a trickle and don't publicise it.

Surveillance needs to be ramped up, hate preachers need to be prosecuted with inciting terror.

And this won't happen, but all terror offence, including preparatory offences, need to be punishable by death. Or at least life with no chance of parole.

 

[Somerandomdude]

This is just the start of a very long, bloody and painful struggle to rid ourselves of the enemy within. All because of PC dominated politics, media, education system, and mass immigration.

Thanks guys!!! ??

 

[Somerandomdude]

And I'll say another thing: people who continue to shift blame or pretend there is no problem now are traitors at this point. And yes I'm talking about you spacejunk.

 

[-=SS=-]

23,000 people have been 'subjects of interest' as scale of terror threat emerges after Manchester attack

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/27/23000-people-have-subjects-interest-scale-terror-threat-emerges/

23,000.

And that's only the ones who have actually come on to the radar. Granted not everyone in that 23,000 is going to be an imminent danger to the public, but that figure is absolutely mind boggling and it should be of concern to everyone living in the UK. Even if you discount say 50% of those being erroneous intelligence or reporting, that's still 10,000 people who are actively interested in this whole enterprise of terror. They may not be making devices, but they may be helping to sow seeds in the minds of others or helping in other negative ways. It's really fucking disturbing that figure.

Just more evidence that this is a massive problem that needs nipping in the bud right now before it spirals beyond our control.

 

[alasdairm]

Listening to some of the impotent drivel from the likes of swilow makes me sick. So much pussyfooting and umm and ahhing about this whole topic.

Serious action needs to be taken. It starts with a drastic reduction in Muslim immigration. We need to focus on integrating the ones here. A total ban is too inflammatory and becomes big news. Just slow it down to a trickle and don't publicise it.

Surveillance needs to be ramped up, hate preachers need to be prosecuted with inciting terror.

And this won't happen, but all terror offence, including preparatory offences, need to be punishable by death. Or at least life with no chance of parole.

the imam at a mosque attended by the manchester bomber spoke out publicly about isis. the bomber was banned from same mosque for disrupting the imam's 'anti-isis' sermon.

following that incident, several people alerted the authorities:

Security services were repeatedly warned about Abedi over his extremist views before Monday's attack, sources told the Daily Telegraph.

However, despite the alleged warnings, they failed to stop him.

Two members of the public called a special anti-terrorist hotline to report the ISIS-linked killer’s horrific views, The Mirror reported.

One community worker said two people who knew Abedi at college made separate calls to the police begging them to take action.

He said: “All of the publicity is about Muslims not coming forward and this shows that they are coming forward and expressing their concerns.”

Both callers said they had been worried that “he was supporting terrorism” and had expressed the view “being a suicide bomber was OK".

so perhaps you'll agree with me that this was a failure on the part of the authorities?

And I'll say another thing: people who continue to shift blame or pretend there is no problem now are traitors at this point.

you're oversimplifying a complex issue and you're simply trying to divide with tired "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

you do seem to struggle with a simple difference of perspective and opinion. maybe you're just so deeply indoctrinated by hard right lunacy it's impossible to get through to you? sounds familiar...

It's interesting that the stupid bitch all these kids had paid a ridiculous amount of money to see, hasn't actually bothered to make any sympathetic noises at all.

yeah, what a stupid, unsympathetic bitch: Ariana Grande announces Manchester benefit concert

"Our response to this violence must be to come closer together, to help each other, to love more, to sing louder and to live more kindly and generously than we did before," she wrote.

amen.

alasdair

 

[Soso78]

I Think everyone can agree it's a failure by the authorities alisdair, that's why people are so pissed of and suggesting other things that can be done.

 

[-=SS=-]

I Think everyone can agree it's a failure by the authorities alisdair, that's why people are so pissed of and suggesting other things that can be done.

Whilst I don't disagree with this statement, and in addition I would love to know just where all the money has gone in regards to MI5/GCHQ, the authorities can't be monitoring all 3,500 of these people.. given that the serious ones are probably well aware of how to avoid being spied on as it is (so require actual physical surveillance). I can't claim to know anything about how they do their business but I would imagine they simply weren't designed or staffed sufficiently to trail that many people at once.

Accordingly it has to be up to the communities themselves do to more.. who else is going to do it? Especially if everyone seems so keen on ruling out more discriminatory or drastic measures then there isn't really any other avenues we can take. Reducing military activity abroad as Corbyn suggests is not going to stop this, the ball is already rolling. There is obviously things happening within these communities, so as much as it hurts the innocent and law abiding to be spied on or forced to be utterly transparent, what other recourse is there?

I don't see a peaceful end to this, it's a slow boil but eventually I think the public is going to snap.

 

[swilow]

Gonna ignore Somerandomtroll's line of invective. Feel free to actually, you know, contribute something besides tedious ad homs, mate.

The terrorists are already influencing policy decisions in this country, that is a natural outcome of cause and effect.. we have to respond to threats and implement steps to mitigate or neutralize the dangers. That does not mean they made us do anything. The only transferal of power I see is when you say there is. All I see is our society taking steps to counter a threat. What are we supposed to do, Swillow? Just do nothing? We have to take actions and enact legislation or whatever, that doesn't mean the terrorists have done that. We take steps against other threats, like the climate or diseases, and in all cases it doesn't mean we gave any power away. I don't really get why you (and the media say this too) that we're "giving the terrorists what they want". The terrorists want to destroy our culture, which is what will happen if we don't act and destroy them.

Most immigrants are not terrorists, no. But this is not a typical set of circumstances. We would not be admitting people blindly from a nation that had a disease epidemic like ebola for example. We have the right to be more guarded when circumstances dictate we need to be. This is such a time, for people coming from the ME or Northern Africa. There is absolutely no need to be offended or up in arms by that.. I just can't wrap my head around the emotional hysteria that says we have to drop all discrimination because it might offend someone or runs contrary to our "values of tolerance" or whatever. It's ridiculous.

Well, I've never stated that we should "do nothing" or to "blindly" let people into the country. I believe we need to screen and vet refugees in the same way that we would any person entering a country. The UK in particular need to do something to control immigrants entering the country unnoticed; I'm really not too sure why this is so difficult given you are an island with really one point of entrance from Europe but of course determined people will sneak in. I don't like harsh measures like this, but Australia banned anyone attempting to reach Australia by boat from ever settling in Australia. Now, this policy has had terrible consequences in terms of splitting up families and needlessly imprisoning people in 3rd world countries, but it has also stopped the huge numbers of people that were drowning at sea in their attempts to reach Australia. I hate the policy in many sense, but its certainly stopped the dying.

I'm trying to address the probability that many of these people won't have any way to verify who they are. What can you do then? You cannot send people back to a warzone.

Terrorists want us acting irrationally and with fear and adopting policies that go against national interest. I believe that our countries have always welcomed people to them. Australia is the definition of multicultural. We haven't decided to block immigration of certain peoples for many years, and I believe this has added to our growing standing in the world. I would rather it this way than not. Of course, we need to react to terrorism and this would require legislation, but I am talking about cultural values which we should feel happy we have, and they encompass things like inclusiveness, a welcoming nature and homogenous and peaceful community. Australia has manged to avoid the worst of this spate of terrorism (though we've had a number of incidents) despite having a large number of ME and North African's entering the country. We haven't had to ban any group of people to get to this point.

No that's true. However ISIS did state quite clearly they would use the refugee wave to smuggle fighters into the EU, hence right now we do need to be extra discriminatory.. we have to take their threat seriously.

Isis have made many threats. We shouldn't negotiate or concede any powers to these guys. For one thing, they are rapidly losing power and resources; I would say they will be a shattered force within a year. Perhaps sooner, it is widely ackonowledged that they have been on the back foot for some time. It seems we are winning the fight against them, even amidst the immigration and terrorism crisis, and we didn't actually need to change our policies very much.

I don't agree with the notion that this is all happening solely because of Western intervention in their nations, which is what Corbyn is suggesting. This has been going on before that. Nor is their culture being destroyed or facing existential threat.

I also don't believe this is the sole reason, I think Islam plays a role. Particularly the extreme versions of it, such as wahhabism. But we cannot say this because one of our fucking allies, Saudi Arabia, have wholeheartedly adopted this interpretation so we must pretend it is all good.

However, terrorism has been increasingly happening ever since Western powers intervened in the middle east for the shortsighted and retributive "War on Terror". This was always seen as a risk of that particular failed ideological war. Your own MI5 warned Tony Blair of this when he decided to go gung-ho into the middle east. I'm certainly not saying western countries deserve this; no-one deserves to die in such awful ways; but I think you need to acknowledge that the War on Terror, and preceding interventions in the Middle East (probably back to 1948 when Israel was "created" from the lands of Muslims), have contributed dramatically to us citizens suddenly becoming targets for this extreme form of Islam.

Spoiler: Graph depicting terrorism rates since 2000

I think we should get the fuck out of the Middle East. We should never have been there in the first place.

We entered a place where an ideological and theological war has been happening for many years, and have become targets ourselves. Never forget, more Muslims are killed by Islamic terrorism than Westerners. I'm not sure what it is going to take for this stop.

Now I do disagree with your premise here. To say we're suffering from a 'misperception' because science has deemed us to be genetically identical isn't a solid argument - our propensity towards certain behaviours are not solely rooted in just genetics or pure physicality. Yes on paper we may look the same, but in actuality we are not. Families have certain states of minds, as do workplaces or any groupings, and so do too entire races. It's can be subtle, but it is there. You can't measure what I'm referring to using scientific instrumentation but you can see the outcome of it in decision or actions taken, and patterns of behaviour.

We will have to agree to disagree. All I'll say is read this (which I am sure you are familiar with). This suggests to me that any attempts to justify racial discrimination are futile or pointless. These reactions do not occur because they are reasonable reactions, but because we evolved to react that way. They are pre-concious.

I bloody hate mushy peas

But what else are you lot fighting for??? :D

 

[Ovidio]

SO much wilful ignorance in this thread.

I think we all agree that terrorists are the scum of the Earth and should be wiped out.

Yes, we all have cultural roots which we are attached to and would like to protect and uphold. Some of us will lean one way or another in order to defend our values.

However, globalisation and integration between races and cultures is inevitable. It's a fact of life. That doesn't mean that cultural norms and behaviours we hold dear are going to be eradicated. Certainly not in our lifetime - or the next. To be paranoid about this defies rationalism and objective reality.

All this means is that we should work together by using logic and reason in order to find solutions to problems faced worldwide and locally, rather than letting prejudice and racism govern our decisions.

 

[swilow]

SO much wilful ignorance in this thread.

I think we all agree that terrorists are the scum of the Earth and should be wiped out.

Yes, we all have cultural roots which we are attached to and would like to protect and uphold. Some of us will lean one way or another in order to defend our values.

However, globalisation and integration between races and cultures is inevitable. It's a fact of life. That doesn't mean that cultural norms and behaviours we hold dear are going to be eradicated. Certainly not in our lifetime - or the next. To be paranoid about this defies rationalism and objective reality.

All this means is that we should work together by using logic and reason in order to find solutions to problems faced worldwide and locally, rather than letting prejudice and racism govern our decisions.

Well said

 

[-=SS=-]

Well, I've never stated that we should "do nothing" or to "blindly" let people into the country. I believe we need to screen and vet refugees in the same way that we would any person entering a country. The UK in particular need to do something to control immigrants entering the country unnoticed; I'm really not too sure why this is so difficult given you are an island with really one point of entrance from Europe but of course determined people will sneak in. I don't like harsh measures like this, but Australia banned anyone attempting to reach Australia by boat from ever settling in Australia. Now, this policy has had terrible consequences in terms of splitting up families and needlessly imprisoning people in 3rd world countries, but it has also stopped the huge numbers of people that were drowning at sea in their attempts to reach Australia. I hate the policy in many sense, but its certainly stopped the dying.

Australia has the right idea. As with any policy there will always be those who lose out, you can't please everyone at all times. But what is the greater loss? Some families being split and some people imprisoned, or an endless wave of people drowning and bringing all the negatives of mass immigration? It's a pretty clear cut choice, the only people who don't like it are those directly affected naturally and the bleeding heart liberals who like to think they're doing something positive without actually having done anything except making irritating mouth noise.

It shouldn't be that difficult to do, being an island, but we have a totally useless political class who know they can't fix shit in this country and want to take the easy route of importing lots of cheap labour at the expense of, well, everyone and everything.

I'm trying to address the probability that many of these people won't have any way to verify who they are. What can you do then? You cannot send people back to a warzone.

Conversely we can't accept everyone from a war zone. If half the world went up in flames and they all wanted to come here, what then? At some point you have to draw the line but it seems clear that no one is even considering that logical point; if we accept half the world they will submerge our nation completely and then we will join the list of the already damned nations. So then we all march on the next nation until there's none left and we're finally back to stone age living. It get it, it sucks, I'm not a heartless individual and neither are the other conservative minded individuals, despite the noise from the liberals who believe they have a monopoly on morality and empathy.. it's just that there has to be some foresight and strategic thinking on this.. again, some people are always going to lose out.. that's just the way of the world.

Terrorists want us acting irrationally and with fear and adopting policies that go against national interest. I believe that our countries have always welcomed people to them. Australia is the definition of multicultural. We haven't decided to block immigration of certain peoples for many years, and I believe this has added to our growing standing in the world. I would rather it this way than not. Of course, we need to react to terrorism and this would require legislation, but I am talking about cultural values which we should feel happy we have, and they encompass things like inclusiveness, a welcoming nature and homogenous and peaceful community. Australia has manged to avoid the worst of this spate of terrorism (though we've had a number of incidents) despite having a large number of ME and North African's entering the country. We haven't had to ban any group of people to get to this point.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of what the terrorists are thinking. I hear it on the media a lot too. If you look at what they're actually saying, it's pretty simple - they hate what the West stands for and want it dead, and of course the 'right' system, an Islamic system instead. All they're doing is trying to implement what their ideology wants by using brute violence. Unfortunately -and I'm condensing my response to several points you raised- this is merely the brute force end of the deal, Islam is an ideology that intends to spread itself and try to remedy the simple equation it sets for itself; believes, and non-believers. There is a more slow moving subtle attack coming through in birth rates in host nations, and this is where we will inevitably diverge in our opinions, with myself saying this is a serious problem and yourself saying this can be accommodated and that I'm being too harsh in my assessment. I don't believe this change can be accommodated successfully, for even though a large majority of muslims are "nice" and "peaceful", when the numbers are sufficient the system will inevitably start gravitating towards their ideals of what should be, and not the Western system. And once we reach that point your attempt to debate or reason with the group mentality will fall on deaf ears, we will all be shown the door and laughed out of the room.

I think we should get the fuck out of the Middle East. We should never have been there in the first place... We entered a place where an ideological and theological war has been happening for many years, and have become targets ourselves. Never forget, more Muslims are killed by Islamic terrorism than Westerners. I'm not sure what it is going to take for this stop.

True. Then again if we hadn't we have no idea how history would have unfolded. I mean sooner or later there is going to be a flash point somewhere because Islam just isn't compatible with the cultures and nations that bump up against its borders. It seems to me that this is a situation that will only ever end when either the West destroys Islam, Islam destroys the West, or Islam finally stops being the dunce that it is and starts studying harder, brings itself up to speed with the modern world and chills the fuck out. The issue with that last solution is that it too will inevitably involve violence as the internal forces resolve themselves and habitual patterns of thinking and doing are purged from their system, and unless we build a giant wall around Islam and basically leave it in solitary confinement then that violence is going to catch us on the chin too.

It seems like a lose-lose situation, and I will freely admit to being selfish here when I say I don't care about Islam and that Western society has far more going for it and shouldn't give a fuck about trying to pull Islam up to grade, and that we should just accept that it's had enough time for self-improvement and should be allowed to go extinct so the rest of us can focus on trying to resolve more pressing issues, of which we have many. There's plenty of religions and systems to choose from, shop around! Why do we have to continue stocking this inferior shitty product that no one really wants anyway? That's what I don't understand. It has very clear defects. Let the "nice" and "peaceful" muslims join Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or become Jedi's.. they would be welcomed freely and be of great positive value.. and then let the rest of the violent garbage fall away.

But what else are you lot fighting for??? :D

Pork scratchings

 

[-=SS=-]

Douglas Murray & Sara Khan on Islamist terror prevention

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Let's be bluntly cruel: The deaths, in the grand scheme of things, is minor, no matter how big of a deal the news makes these events, nor how tragic it is for the friends and the family of those who are murdered.

Sure, it's good to reduce the terrorist risk, but deaths from terrorism in the west is probably behind deaths from lack of working smoke detectors. Personally, to each and everyone one of us, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is negligible.

So lets not lose our collective shit and overreact.

 

[-=SS=-]

Let's be bluntly cruel: The deaths, in the grand scheme of things, is minor, no matter how big of a deal the news makes these events, nor how tragic it is for the friends and the family of those who are murdered.

Sure, it's good to reduce the terrorist risk, but deaths from terrorism in the west is probably behind deaths from lack of working smoke detectors. Personally, to each and everyone one of us, the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is negligible.

So lets not lose our collective shit and overreact.

Well it was only a matter of time I guess before someone trotted out that old nugget in this thread. These murders are not minor, they are not just negligible but unavoidable deaths, they are worth putting to the forefront of conversation because unlike smoke detectors the people behind these murders actively want to commit murder and plan to do so again.. we need to talk about this. Smoke detectors don't conspire to murder people, and they certainly don't entertain plots to kill innocent children either.

Honestly Escher, if you're going to bring something to the table of discussion you'll have to do better than that.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Well it was only a matter of time I guess before someone trotted out that old nugget in this thread. These murders are not minor, they are not just negligible but unavoidable deaths, they are worth putting to the forefront of conversation because unlike smoke detectors the people behind these murders actively want to commit murder and plan to do so again.. we need to talk about this. Smoke detectors don't conspire to murder people, and they certainly don't entertain plots to kill innocent children either.

Most murderers actively want to commit murder. Some conspire, some kill innocent children.

We deal with them as a criminal manner, take reasonable steps to reduce the risk, and otherwise not lose our minds over it.

Why is this different?