ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 "Chamberlain's actions were ultimately positive or irrelevant to the war effort allowing the UK to be a victor in the war." Nope, Chamberlain's​ actions had little,if any impact on Britain's victory,most of the battles during his rule were lost.In fact he failed so many times that they just replaced him. Which'd be irrelevant as I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Possible, but very unlikely. No reason we can't just put them through the normal judicial system. No reason to make them special or cost much more than average. I see no reason this would make terrorist attacks any bigger or smaller than they are currently. Thats bizarre. How could reduced security measures possibly equate to negligible changes in terrorist acts and deaths? Explain your reasoning behind that. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Thats bizarre. How could reduced security measures possibly equate to negligible changes in terrorist acts and deaths? Explain your reasoning behind that. The groups have fixed assets. They don't get more money from their leadership just because security isn't as extreme as it was before. One mass shooter's the same as another mass shooter and we have no problem with the American ones committing the attacks, why not just treat these the same way and then tuck them into Colorado for the rest of their lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 The groups have fixed assets. They don't get more money from their leadership just because security isn't as extreme as it was before. One mass shooter's the same as another mass shooter and we have no problem with the American ones committing the attacks, why not just treat these the same way and then tuck them into Colorado for the rest of their lives? Those fixed assets would be more cost effective without the additional preventive measures in place! I actually don't care about if they are treated differently after being apprehended, so I'm not overly interested in addressing that particular thing. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) I did neither of those... What are you on about? Edited April 14, 2017 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Those fixed assets would be more cost effective without the additional preventive measures in place! In either case, killing fewer people than the people driving to the attacks based on daily car accident figures. I actually don't care about if they are treated differently after being apprehended, so I'm not overly interested in addressing that particular thing. They shouldn't be, it just makes them think they're heroes of their cause. Drag them through court just as one would a common criminal and really show them how useless and disposable they are. There should be no problem no using anti-terror measures to deal with them anymore than they're used to deal with domestic mass shooters. I did neither of those... What are you on about? Not a clue, you'll have to be more specific if you want a proper response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I did neither of those... What are you on about? Not a clue, you'll have to be more specific if you want a proper response. So you don't even know what you're talking about? Know what you're on about first before asking me, I'm not your servant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I did neither of those... What are you on about? Not a clue, you'll have to be more specific if you want a proper response. So you don't even know what you're talking about? Know what you're on about first before asking me, I'm not your servant. k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 1 Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 k So you admit you don't know what you're on about. Checkmate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Nope, I posted a letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 In either case, killing fewer people than the people driving to the attacks based on daily car accident figures. I don't think you take into account any psychological impact from attacks engineered to terrorize populaces or demoralize superior forces. They shouldn't be, it just makes them think they're heroes of their cause. Drag them through court just as one would a common criminal and really show them how useless and disposable they are. There should be no problem no using anti-terror measures to deal with them anymore than they're used to deal with domestic mass shooters. Okay. I don't know all the facts, but sure. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I don't think you take into account any psychological impact from attacks engineered to terrorize populaces or demoralize superior forces. That maybe the intent, but if we stopped making such a big deal out of them that wouldn't be an issue at all. Okay. I don't know all the facts, but sure. I had the same opinion about Osama. Drag his ass to the Manhattan Detention Center, try him for his crimes and ship him to Colorado to never be heard from again until he dies. Glorifying what, if done by anyone else, would be just a crime into something big and dramatic is doing a service to these people, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 ". That maybe the intent, but if we stopped making such a big deal out of them that wouldn't be an issue at all. " If we pay attention to Pepe memes then what makes you think we won't make a big deal out of these things? 1 Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Because we can force it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Because we can force it Thought police. Got it. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Not really thought police. We can just force an end to that sort of glorification. No active governmental official is permitted to be interviewed or otherwise involved with any commercial communications until such time as that communications avenue has pledged not to glorify terrorism. The networks can either comply or run out of things to talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) I don't think you take into account any psychological impact from attacks engineered to terrorize populaces or demoralize superior forces. Okay. I don't know all the facts, but sure. At first it seems like a stupid idea but think of it-We divert anti-terror funds into a more vital thing like self-driving tech (drastically reducing deaths from car crashes) or cancer research (potentially saving millions of lives),then we just give terrorism the normal treatment, countless more lives get saved this way and the terrorists don't get glorified for bringing Jihad (Islamic terror) or cleansing Jews (far right). As shocking as it may seem This kills more Americans in a single day than all terror acts in the US since 2001 (excluding 9/11) combined Not really thought police. We can just force an end to that sort of glorification. No active governmental official is permitted to be interviewed or otherwise involved with any commercial communications until such time as that communications avenue has pledged not to glorify terrorism. The networks can either comply or run out of things to talk about.Isn't that against free speech??I mean the media is still going to cover these things, this is basically their job Edited April 14, 2017 by Vincent de Beer Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 At first it seems like a stupid idea but think of it-We divert anti-terror funds into a more vital thing like self-driving tech (drastically reducing deaths from car crashes) or cancer research (potentially saving millions of lives),then we just give terrorism the normal treatment, countless more lives get saved this way and the terrorists don't get glorified for bringing Jihad (Islamic terror) or cleansing Jews (far right). As shocking as it may seem This kills more Americans in a single day than all terror acts in the US since 2001 (excluding 9/11) combined That's exactly my point. We can save a lot more people by addressing things that are a lot more lethal. Isn't that against free speech??I mean the media is still going to cover these things, this is basically their job Nope. Free speech isn't inhibited and there's no part of it that requires the government to participate in your speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I see Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tali Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Isn't that against free speech??I mean the media is still going to cover these things, this is basically their job The amendment on Free expression only protects you from government prosecution for voicing your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 The amendment on Free expression only protects you from government prosecution for voicing your opinion. The amendment on Free expression only protects you from government prosecution for voicing your opinion. That's not even the point.My point is that Milton's idea of saving more lives by not trying to prevent terrorism is lovely and all but he's not taking into account the multitude of other results that terrorism has on a populace apart from the deaths. Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tali Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 That's not even the point.My point is that Milton's idea of saving more lives by not trying to prevent terrorism is lovely and all but he's not taking into account the multitude of other results that terrorism has on a populace apart from the deaths. >asks if it would violate the bill of rights >explains it only protects you from prosecution. Hence y an employer can fire you for voicing opinions against them Ayy lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Okay Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 That's not even the point.My point is that Milton's idea of saving more lives by not trying to prevent terrorism is lovely and all but he's not taking into account the multitude of other results that terrorism has on a populace apart from the deaths. Most of the psychological damage features from terrorism is shared by those who lose sometimes entire families to car accidents and constant hype and reasons to panic given by the media when covering a terrorist attack as if it's the first time people have died or like it matters that they're killed by someone for political reasons rather than economic reasons in a car accident featuring a car that for reasons of profits refuses to make some safety equipment standard. Death's death and there's just no argument that terrorism is anywhere near as likely to kill you as a car accident or other primary cause of death for Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.