patrick.net

Ironman says

So, you decided to just skip over the list of adults that I pointed out who were in the theater...

So double standard of you!!

Your previous argument was that all adults should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Now you think what? That a theatre should be allowed to have some armed guards? How many? How many would be enough? Think about the practicalities of that. You don't even have that in your gun fixated country.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

Your previous argument was that all adults should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Why do you spin such bullshit. My argument is that any adult who wants to carry concealed, should be able to. I never said "ALL".

What's the difference? If you say any, then it's quite possible for it to be all, certainly a good number of people YOU no doubt don't want to be able to carry guns - you know, young French Muslim male adults for starters. But hey, that's your argument, an argument sure to put every pub and club goer at ease when they know that at any minute they might spill the pint of any moronic pissed up rambo of the CiC variety and trigger a fire fight. Good plan.

Ironman says

And YOUR solution is to have ZERO concealed carry and ZERO guards because law enforcement will protect us. How naive and clueless is that?

Oh, I don't know, that's the way it has been throughout our lifetime and the vast majority of people seem to have managed to avoid a terrorist attack. You want to turn the world on its head in response to the actions of some sick minded young men. Have armed security at every single building. Allow any young adult to carry a concealed gun... Metal detectors, paranoia... airport style security at your local mall. Well done, that's precisely the reaction they want. Congratulations on bending to terrorists.

Ironman says

Talk about being a delusional and dishonest idiot... Care to point out ANYWHERE where I stated ANY of the bullshit you posted.... ANYWHERE... Talk about living in a fantasy land!!!

Go ahead, point out just one example... I'll wait...

A. You said all adults should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
B. You said that this wouldn't have happened if this small venue had multiple armed guards. Presumably, any building that holds at least that number of people should have armed guards at the entrance - you know, places like SHOPPING MALLS. I take it then that armed guards at every entrance is fine, but metal detectors are a step too far.
C. Cafes and bars were attacked. Do you not want armed guards at those as well?

Forget about concealed carry. I want open carry! I should be able to walk around with an assault rife if I want to.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

You said all adults should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

LIAR

I said ANY (not ALL) adults who want to carry should be able to and not have a blanket, no carry law across the country. Do you really think ALL adults even want to carry?

What you just said is precisely what I said you said - 'you said all adults SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY.' That doesn't mean they would be forced to carry, does it? I know you are trolling, but you need to try harder with your responses.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

You said that this wouldn't have happened if this small venue had multiple armed guards.

LIAR

When you said "kids" shouldn't carry, my response to you (go back and read above) that wasn't there ADULT employees or security at the theater that could carry. Are you going to try and tell me that the theater didn't have any security for a heavy metal concert.

I didn't literally mean kids, amazingly enough. 18/19/20... year olds are kids to me. And yes, I'm sure they had security, but again, amazingly enough, nearly all places except heavily protected government institutions and the like are not and cannot practically be in a position to defend against multiple attackers armed with AK-47s.

Ironman says

That's YOUR problem... You "presume" and make up lies and false statements to fit YOUR twisted narrative.

Go re-post one comment that I made in this thread where I said I wanted armed guards at EVERY location! I dare you to find one!

My twisted narrative? The one where I don't want young people armed on a night out? The one where I don't want every building to be guarded by multiple armed individuals, and presumably every park, high street, school... as well? It's not my vision that is twisted, it's yours.

Ironman says

Bigsby says

you said all adults SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY

Ironman says

I said ANY (not ALL) adults who want to carry should be able to

Do you know the difference between these two words: "Any" and "All"?

Apparently not. Perhaps then, you can clarify the difference in meaning between 'any adult should be allowed' and 'all adults should be allowed.'

Ironman says

So, it's OK to give a "kid" a rifle to defend his country, but it's NOT OK to let a "kid" defend himself or his family if he so chooses?

Do I have your double, liberal standard correct?

Last time I checked, that person had gone through extensive training and is not allowed to carry his weapons down to the pub when he is getting shit faced with his squaddie mates. Maybe it is different in the US.

Ironman says

Ironman says

Go re-post one comment that I made in this thread where I said I wanted armed guards at EVERY location! I dare you to find one!

I'm STILL waiting!!!

So you only want them at places that have already been attacked by terrorists? Good plan!!!!!

I take it that you don't know what a question mark is.
Perhaps you'd like to state where the armed guards should be then. We've already learned that you think relatively small concert venues should have them. Where else? I won't be holding my breath for your answer.

Still waiting.

And still waiting.

You're going to have to wait for a while. CIC spent his last dollar on condoms and cat food.

Thanks for the condoms, but yours are too small for me.

Or is this just your way of telling me you want to ride me bareback?

I would be flattered if he wasn't such a fat fuck loser uggo.

I'm not worry about me so much as I am about all the neighborhood pets. Last time CIC visited Florida, there was a shortage of anal lube and dog food.

Bigsby says

Genius. Yes, they might have picked a softer target if necessary

Thank you, I aspire to be as intelligent as you someday. It's a real uphill battle though. But one day, by the grace of god, I can achieve your level of British Inbred royal stock level of excellence.

What is a softer target than a 5 star hotel in India? Please explain. Each and every one of those 'softer targets' have been hit at some point in the past and will be in the future.

Bigsby says

quite clear from past history that they are also willing to attack some pretty heavily defended

Outside of New Delhi, which attacks were 'heavily defended'? Here is an INCOMPLETE list of attacks (Mostly perpetrated by muslims). Tell me what percentage happened in 'highly secure' environments.

Just because a place has a few armed individuals (Parliament building, High Court), I doubt you can call it heavily defended with islamic interlopers on staff aiding and abetting. The death rate in those settings was low because of the security and no strategic kills occurred in that environment. Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_India

As stated earlier, attacks on New Delhi are a minuscule percentage of Terrorist Attacks in India and any place with jihadi intruders on staff make a place 'heavily armed' to reiterate the point, less secure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India

It seems to me that in your royal inbred brilliance that you are indirectly implying that they are somehow brave by attacking 'heavily guarded' government buildings. Also the kills at the parliament building totaled about 12 whereas when they attack less secure areas such as trains, the kill rate is much higher, such as the bombings in 2005, one of numerous examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Delhi_bombings

Wonder where the chechen assholes in Boston got the idea for pressure cooker bombs? Look no further than Mumbai 2006. Hell, the number killed or injured was almost as great as the 2008 attacks but got far less media coverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mumbai_train_bombings

Bigsby says

do you just want to ignore those assaults for convenience sake

That's pretty much what you've done. Specifically claim that there are a lot of assaults on secure buildings where the kill rate was very low due to security and then claim that places that don't normally have security (i.e. train stations, trains), where the majority of attacks and kills have occurred, should continue to not have security because of the possibility of collateral damage. On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible to defend oneself against suicide bombers, but that is still a relatively low percentage of the terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims on Indian soil. They don't need to blow themselves up because they know if they kill, they will get off lightly and not even spend life in prison in most cases or be hanged. India has to tread very lightly on meting out punishment to prevent the rest of the muslim psychos from rioting and looting.

The only tough stand was during the Godhra riots. Gujarat is prone to fewer attacks than say Mumbai or South India (Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning

There is a shortage of even rent-a-cops in India who wouldn't be able to defend against a gun attack from guys wielding automatic weapons and return fire capably enough kill or maim criminals. Those scrubs couldn't hit the broad side of the sky, if push came to shove. The biggest reason why muslims can commit murders relatively unscathed in India is India's police to population ratio is one of the lowest in the world, barring the poorer African countries. There is a high deficit of personnel in intelligence gathering. The IB has barely 3,500 field officers. Terrorists have no fear of being detected, arrested or prosecuted." PR Chari, a research professor at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, said "the blasts were a demonstration of their (terrorists) capabilities and a terse reminder of the state's helplessness, in reference to the blasts in 2008 in Ahmedabad killing 56 and injuring 200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ahmedabad_blasts

MMR says

Bigsby says

Genius. Yes, they might have picked a softer target if necessary

Thank you, I aspire to be as intelligent as you someday. It's a real uphill battle though. But one day, by the grace of god, I can achieve your level of British Inbred royal stock level of excellence.

What is a softer target than a 5 star hotel in India? Please explain. Each and every one of those 'softer targets' have been hit at some point in the past and will be in the future.

Re-read your own post. You talked about if there were armed guards... and I responded that they then might have picked a softer target. It really wasn't that difficult to follow. And hey, I never knew I was royalty. I better check on any missing inheritance.

MMR says

Outside of New Delhi, which attacks were 'heavily defended'? Here is an INCOMPLETE list of attacks (Mostly perpetrated by muslims). Tell me what percentage happened in 'highly secure' environments.

Just because a place has a few armed individuals (Parliament building, High Court), I doubt you can call it heavily defended with islamic interlopers on staff aiding and abetting. The death rate in those settings was low because of the security and no strategic kills occurred in that environment. Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

Any number of incidents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks in Iraq and Libya on heavily armed buildings etc. etc. My point, if you missed it, was to say that they are quite clearly not afraid to attack heavily armed installations. You see that every day in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these individuals are simply not afraid to die, in fact they embrace it, something that you seem to be utterly ignoring in your comments about them laying down arms in the face of a few armed individuals.

MMR says

Not a compelling argument for there to not be more people armed in a country with a big 'muslim problem' in areas typically lacking government-sanctioned security.

What relevance has that to the impossibility of protecting the inordinate number of potential soft targets that any country has? You can't completely protect a country from these attacks. That is just the reality. You want to go the gung-ho rambo approach of arming every individual willing - hardly an approach to make society safer given the number of firearm murders in your country compared to Europe. Clearly it doesn't have the desired affect you think it has.

MMR says

As stated earlier, attacks on New Delhi are a minuscule percentage of Terrorist Attacks in India and any place with jihadi intruders on staff make a place 'heavily armed' to reiterate the point, less secure

So? What has that got to do with the impossibility of securing a city from attacks?

MMR says

It seems to me that in your royal inbred brilliance that you are indirectly implying that they are somehow brave by attacking 'heavily guarded' government buildings. Also the kills at the parliament building totaled about 12 whereas when they attack less secure areas such as trains, the kill rate is much higher, such as the bombings in 2005, one of numerous examples.

There you go again, royal blood in the family indeed. And I made no comment about bravery or otherwise. I was talking about willingness - they are more than willing to give up their lives. Call that sort of suicidal belief whatever you like. It makes no difference to the end result. And who's arguing that the death rate wouldn't be lower when attacking Parliament compared to any number of other possibilities? What's your point? That every cafe, McDonalds, High Street, Farmers' Market... should/could have the same level of security as a government building?

MMR says

That's pretty much what you've done. Specifically claim that there are a lot of assaults on secure buildings where the kill rate was very low due to security and then claim that places that don't normally have security (i.e. train stations, trains), where the majority of attacks and kills have occurred, should continue to not have security because of the possibility of collateral damage.

Except that's not what I argued. I said they weren't afraid to attack heavily guarded institutions (when that is their aim). That isn't their aim in Europe though, is it? Their aim (amongst many others) is to sow as much fear as they can, to increase the paranoia and to increase hostility towards the Muslim community and so aid their recruitment. Increase protection in train stations and they'll attack somewhere else. You stop this by attempting to prevent it from happening in the first place.

MMR says

There is a shortage of even rent-a-cops in India who wouldn't be able to defend against a gun attack from guys wielding automatic weapons and return fire capably enough kill or maim criminals. Those scrubs couldn't hit the broad side of the sky, if push came to shove. The biggest reason why muslims can commit murders relatively unscathed in India is India's police to population ratio is one of the lowest in the world, barring the poorer African countries. There is a high deficit of personnel in intelligence gathering. The IB has barely 3,500 field officers. Terrorists have no fear of being detected, arrested or prosecuted." PR Chari, a research professor at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, said "the blasts were a demonstration of their (terrorists) capabilities and a terse reminder of the state's helplessness, in reference to the blasts in 2008 in Ahmedabad killing 56 and injuring 200

What exactly is your fixation with India? We are talking about what is happening in Europe and the fact that unlike all the rambos on this forum, I find the idea of arming any young adult with concealed weapons an utterly ludicrous response to what has happened. That and the idea of having armed security all over the place - precisely where obviously not being something the likes of CiC are willing to answer.

Thread title needs updating.

ISIS is the result of Obama war policy. If one considers an iota of historical reference, they would realize it takes multiple decades to complete the reform of a wayward civilization. Pulling out of Iraq was akin to performing brain surgery, and going on strike in the middle of the operation while the skullcap was still beaker-bound bathing in saline solution.
Democrats, in their haste to participate in history electing the first black president, regardless of his complete lack of experience, have all the blood spilled in the middle east for the past 7 years on their hands...

SoftShell says

ISIS is the result of Obama war policy. If one considers an iota of historical reference, they would realize it takes multiple decades to complete the reform of a wayward civilization. Pulling out of Iraq was akin to performing brain surgery, and going on strike in the middle of the operation while the skullcap was still beaker-bound bathing in saline solution.

Remind us all again of the basis of the troop withdrawal under Obama - you know, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in, oh, yes, 2008.

This is treason by Neoliberals of both parties who are so attached the Saudi Barbaria and the Gulf States, they look the other way.

Both the Bush and Obama 'regimes' have studiously ignored the massive KSA/GCC connections to Fundamentalist Islam via AQ/MB/ISIS.

I choose to remind you instead of the converted bastions of democracy...Germany...South Korea...Japan.
Those examples are living proof that the process of conversion takes a large presence of troops and decades of time, something the touchy-feely left has no stomach for.
It's funny that libbies can remember way back to the horrors of slavery, but draw blanks at what worked after WWII...

SoftShell says

I choose to remind you instead of the converted bastions of democracy...Germany...South Korea...Japan.

Those examples are living proof that the process of conversion takes a large presence of troops and decades of time, something the touchy-feely left has no stomach for.

It's funny that libbies can remember way back to the horrors of slavery, but draw blanks at what worked after WWII...

It's just a shame that those examples had little to nothing in common with what happened in Iraq.

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.
Instead, he catered to liberal angst over shouldering additional guilt brought on by collateral damage the process incurs...

Bigsby says

Remind us all again of the basis of the troop withdrawal under Obama - you know, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in, oh, yes, 2008.

This comment highlights the shortsightedness of the progressives...

Bigsby says

It's just a shame that those examples had little to nothing in common with what happened in Iraq.

bgamall4 says

Bush created ISIS. Obama fostered ISIS and at least didn't invade Assad. That is one thing he did that will help mankind, keeping a stable government in Syria. It isn't his long term goal because he works for the neocons. But really girls, it is just one government committed to one goal, regime change and world domination.

So America and Israel carried out the Paris attacks.

SoftShell says

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.

Because the US Public, including at least half of GOP voters and probably more, were REALLY in favor of sending a million troops to Iraq... which would have required a draft.

The null hypothesis was superior: Let Secular Arab Dictators keep Islamists in check, and keep on secularizing their societies.

SoftShell says

Irrelevant. Obama had the power to reverse this policy and stock Iraq with a hundred thousand troops or so to preserve the process.

Instead, he catered to liberal angst over shouldering additional guilt brought on by collateral damage the process incurs...

Sure, sure, everyone in your country wanted the troops to remain and it's all Obama's fault they didn't. Spend your time rewriting history, do you? And the dismantling of the Iraqi army was done under Bush's watch. He let the partisan politics in Iraq take over, he allowed and in many ways instigated the disintegration of the Iraqi army. Have you never actually wondered how a few thousand ISIS fighters were able to rout the entire Iraqi army? That was down to Bush and Cheney's policies not Obama.

But my version makes the story more colorful and intrigues the reader......
thunderlips11 says

The null hypothesis was superior:

No...
Bigsby says

Sure, sure, everyone in your country wanted the troops to remain

Yes...
Bigsby says

and it's all Obama's fault they didn't.

A true leader makes the right moves...not the popular ones...

Yeah, yeah, hindsight makes it so easy. Let me imagine the reaction if those troops had stayed and US forces were then being attacked by ISIS from Syria on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.
And you didn't answer my question - why was the Iraqi standing army so easily routed by a few thousand relatively lightly armed fanatics? Who's fault do you imagine that to be? A well functioning army doesn't need to have another army standing alongside it in order to operate. You understand that I presume. So again, why was the army in the state it was?

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?
Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...
Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

SoftShell says

Why would anyone have to "imagine" chronicled history?

Bigsby says

Who's fault do you imagine that to be?

Who's asking you to imagine actual history? I asked you to imagine the reaction to him not removing the troops as everyone wanted. You would have been on here screaming to high heaven, or do you want us all to believe now that you wanted the troops to remain? It's you who is making up an alternate history.

SoftShell says

Not to worry. We'd put the British segment of coalition forces on the Syrian border. Problem solved...

Bigsby says

Yes, I'm sure the US population would have been happy to put up with the mounting death toll.

That would be difficult seeing as the vast majority of British forces withdrew in 2009.

mell says

Come on, don't play dumb. Messing with and trying to topple Assad, arming "moderate" rebels was likely much more important to strengthen the terrorists than Iraq was, at least the same. And as I said, there was no pressure to topple Assad but there was international pressure to topple Saddam.

I think you are overestimating the role of the US in that particular scenario. This is a power game between the Sunni and Shiite blocks in the region. The US was simply unable to manipulate events in its favour because the reality on the ground is far too muddled to effectively manage.

Right. Obama - and I believe he was dragged into Syria after being fooled on Libya by Nuland, Clinton, etc - caused the Syrian and Libyan messes.

Somebody bragged they killed some ISIS dude in Libya. That dude would have been killed years ago if Qaddafyi's jails were still working. Extra added benefit: No tens of thousands of boat people from Africa landing in Italy, too.

Ironman says

Sure looks like the death toll was "mounting" the last few years while we were still there.

Are you really that thick? Where is ISIS in your little death toll scenario?

Ironman says

Exactly.... They didn't come to strength until AFTER we left.... Duh...

I never knew the US withdrew their troops from Syria. How interesting. And what do you imagine the death toll to be if the US troops had stayed and were being attacked by ISIS as that was the point? Did I really need me to spell it out to you again? Stop wasting everyone's time on here and go and play with your Lego.

Ironman says

AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq. By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his group’s influence back into Iraq and changed the group’s name to ISIS, “reflecting its greater regional ambitions,” according to the U.S. State Department.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190

When did we pull out all our troops again?

What has that got to do with being attacked by ISIS if you had remained? Where did they attack Iraq from you buffoon? A name change is irrelevant - they drew their strength from the conflict going on in Syria.

Ironman says

Are you really that big of an idiot to think that our troops, if left there, couldn't easily handle this "JV" team?

Your troops were being killed on a fairly regular basis even before things got worse in Syria, so yes, I quite obviously can imagine a much higher death toll with insurgents crossing the border and attacking US targets. Or do you think that the US ground forces would have been dragged into Syria? And how many deaths would have come from that? Your army is geared to battle another massive standing army. It struggled with insurgents throughout its time in Iraq just as the Russians did in Afghanistan. And your troop deaths declined because they weren't on the front line any more - they were being withdrawn back and replaced by Iraqi regulars. What do you imagine would have happened if they'd been front line again?

Ironman says

Sure thing Bigs, ISIS would have just taken a nice Sunday ride into Iraq, even with the US military sitting there waiting for them. Maybe they would have had lunch together or a picnic!!

Duh. Insurgency CIC. Insurgency.