Gas Attack in Syria

[ComradeMilton]

"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.

[fistofdoom]

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.

[ComradeMilton]

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?

[fistofdoom]

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.

[Rozalia]

I did neither of those... What are you on about?

Edited April 14, 2017 by Rozalia

[ComradeMilton]

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.

 

[Rozalia]

 

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. 

[ComradeMilton]

 

 

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

[Vicente Martinez]

[Rozalia]

k So you admit you don't know what you're on about. Checkmate. 

[ComradeMilton]

Nope, I posted a letter.

[fistofdoom]

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. 

[ComradeMilton]

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.

[Vicente Martinez]

". 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?

[ComradeMilton]

Because we can force it

[fistofdoom]

Because we can force it

Thought police. Got it.

[ComradeMilton]

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.

[Vicente Martinez]

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

[ComradeMilton]

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

[Vicente Martinez]

I see

[Tali]

 

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.

[Vicente Martinez]

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.

[Tali]

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

[Vicente Martinez]

Okay

[ComradeMilton]

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.