If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I should have made that clearer. Look at it this way, siblings fight, but when one is threatened by someone outside the family, then they stick together...
I didn't say it was acceptable and I don't think anyone else here would either. I did say that those impressions are [apparently] from their perspective. Neither did I say they were right but unless that issue is addressed, there will be a breeding ground for terrorists. No matter how much we use military force.
If you see Military force as the only option, then we would need to wipe out an entire race...
Surely you see that?
Again:
Education is not working. It is making the problem worse.
Economic development, foreign aid, is not working. It is funding their terrorist activities.
If they choose to live in peace, there is no problem. If they choose to export war to the rest of the world, it IS a problem.
If the only viable solution is military intervention, that is the choice which THEY make. What comes is their doing. If that means that their race is wiped out, as the only course of preserving the rest of the world? So be it.
Do not call the song unless you are ready to dance to it.
They call "Jihad"? Then they can be edified as to the deepest meaning of the word, on the receiving end.
IMPORTANT POINT! Before anyone calls me "racist", or takes that to mean that I advocate ending their race, it is rather an issue of them deciding the course, and whatever they choose, WILL be brought to them.
I can live in peace. Can they?
What if they feel that they have no other option?
I'm sure that they can. In fact how many nations have we been at war with? Iraq, Taliban controlled Afghansitan, and to an extent Iran (although this was more about arming Iraq to fight them...)
and yet there is still the perception that the actions of the US threaten their way of life...and military action only reinforces that.
At present the only [apparent] US policy is to kill. Little is offered to countries, with whom you are not fighting, as proof that overall intentions are good. Just a labelling of certain states as "rogue"...
The perception is that the US wants to dominate them, if not through political will then through military action. And that is what the "mullahs" use to get their message across, and the US makes no attempt to put the alternative view accross...
By the same token, US policy could suggest that you have chosen to antagonise them and therefore should expect a violent reaction...
Amusing.
1. The only reason they would feel they have no other option is because they have been told that over and over by their leaders.
2. The perception you describe is perpetuated by leaders who strive to turn it into mindless hatred. Once that is accomplished, the reasons no longer matter. Education does not stop hatred. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that education can contribute to hatred.
3. The US has provided each of the countries in the Middle East more aid than any other country, including their neighbors. The US also enjoys a positive image in the majority of the residents of those countries (only the occupied territories have a majority who have a negative image of the US).
Terrorists aren't rational. And their leadership is educated, highly so, which is why they can manage this.
Cut the head off.
The Soviets had a different solution. It worked. They cut the head off, razed the body and destroyed the family that had raised it and everyone else related. The Soviet Union didn't have many problems with terrorism.
That isn't the course the US has chosen. It could have been.
First of all, the US does not offer more foreign aid to the Middle East than other countries. 30% of the US's annual foreign aid budget, about 6 billion dollars, goes to Israel. Israel is the number one recipient of US foriegn aid. From 1949 to 1997 the total aid given to Israel has been in the neighborhood of 80 billion dollars.
The total budget for all other countries in the Asia/Near East region from the US Agency for International Development is 2.5 billion dollars. This includes the Middle East as well as Southeast and Central Asia.
I think what MoK is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is a need for better primary education in the Middle East. By the time you get to university, your views on life are pretty set. Some change in your views is likely, but your perceptions of other people, prejudices, etc are set from an early age. MoK is implying that early intervention can stop these views from being propogated.
As for the common people of the Middle East loving us, well, that's ridiculous. One of my best friends is a dual citizen of the US and Italy. His father was Italy's ambasssador to Turkey. When Alex wanted to travel around the Middle East, his father, with access to intelligence far more complete than anyone else in this forum, forbade him to travel under his American passport. The crux of his argument was that in that part of the world an American passport was a liability because of the general attitudes towards Americans there.
As for what can be done now, well, other than military intervention there is little else. The US feels threatened, and it is the responsibility of our government to protect its citizens, through the best means possible. And we're talking about protecting our citizens NOW, not twenty years in the future. This means that the terrorist infrastructure has to be removed quickly, before something else happens.
While I agree that education should be improved it isn't going to satisfy the immediate needs of US citizens. Which is what we are dealing with now.
Still I guess the Arabs should be please with that. Why on earth would they think that there was any bias against them???
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. At the moment there is one side of a story given out at an early age. Therefore the seeds of hatred are handed down before the individual gets to see the real world...
All the youngsters see is the US attacking them...and then their "leaders" reinforce that with a little misinformation, a little religious misrepresntation and low a terrorist is born...
Absolutely, military action will solve the immediate problem, but unless the foundations for the future are laid now, we will just be repeating ourselves in the next generation.
So how did the race problem improve? Through education, or because you killed all the racists?
You missed my point. The US gives more aid to the Middle East than any other country gives. Even excluding Israel.
As for the difference in aid? Only one democracy in the Middle East...aren't we supposed to encourage democracy?
Regarding the popularity of the United States, that information came from polls done this year throughout the Middle East. Don't have a link handy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
MoK,
I didn't say education wasn't a good idea. I'm saying that it isn't "THE" solution, and that there is an argument that education contributes to terrorism, not that I necessarily agree with that argument.
but mostly around Kuwait City
I'm not saying it is the solution, but it should form part of the foundations...
as for education contributing to terrorism, I can subscribe to that theory. A little (of the wrong) education is a dangerous thing...
I would like to thank my friends and relatives in England for sharing the Brown Bess, the Henry-Martini, and the Enfield. All wonderous rifles!
I especially love Vickers machine guns.
I don't know why the British people are so shy of using firearms. They never were in the past. The Empire had men who were feared for their ferocity. Britannia ruled the waves! The sun never set on the Empire. What happened?
Now your streets are rife with crime. My relatives over there tell me of the deteriorating crime situation. I feel very badly for you. I also find it a rather sad turn of events that New York is far safer than London.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=314832
16 July 2002 19:09 BDST Home > News > UK > Crime
Britain is now the crime capital of the West
By Sophie Goodchild Home Affairs Correspondent
14 July 2002
Internal links
Britain is now the crime capital of the West
Rape juries to be told of previous convictions
England and Wales now top the Western world's crime league, according to United Nations research.
The UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute reveals that people in England and Wales experience more crime per head than people in the 17 other developed countries analysed in the survey.
The findings are expected to cause further embarrassment to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has pledged to have street crime under control by September.
This week, the Home Office will publish its White Paper outlining radical reform of the criminal justice system, in part to curb spiralling street crime and to punish more offenders. Government sources confirmed to the IoS that the reforms will also include empowering judges to tell rape-trial jurors about a defendant's previous convictions.
In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialised countries.
The UN study analysed Home Office crime statistics for England and Wales and also carried out telephone interviews with victims of crime in the 17 countries surveyed, including the US, Japan, France and Spain.
England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offences, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16.
And "contact crime", defined as robbery, sexual assault and assault with force, was second highest in England and Wales – 3.6 per cent of those surveyed. This compares with 1.9 per cent in the US.
News of the survey comes days after the Government published its long-awaited national crime figures, which showed the first increase in burglaries and thefts for 10 years. A record 108,178 street robberies last year prompted the Metropolitan Police Federation to demand an extra 12,000 officers for London alone. The US, by contrast, has managed to reduce its crime rates, despite its reputation for street robberies and shootings.
Experts say this is the result of a committed policy of ploughing resources into training prisoners, finding them jobs after release and then monitoring them to ensure they do not reoffend.
The Government's reforms are also expected to include similar schemes to those in the US, where prison officers act as "mentors" to inmates both inside prison and on release into the community.
However, the success of these schemes will depend on how much money the Home Secretary receives from the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, in the comprehensive spending review. Last week, Mr Blunkett is understood to have told colleagues that "He [Mr Brown] doesn't like me" after the pair rowed over the Home Secretary's share of the new spending budget.
But government sources say that the Prime Minister has now personally intervened and managed to salvage a better deal for Mr Blunkett.
Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said any attempt to curb crime by reforming the criminal justice system would require substantial resources. "The whole package is massively expensive," he said.
Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: "This just shows why it is ridiculously complacent for the Government to claim a respectable record on crime. The fact is, we have a crime crisis in our inner cities and no coherent programme from the Government to tackle it."
Also from the Crime section.
Dando trial should have been halted, appeal told
Head of CRE arrested after row with police
Children died alongside father in car fire, say police
Gangland feuds blamed for big rise in kidnaps
Official: Shipman 'killed 166 patients'
Return to top
Search this site:
Printable version of story
Gun ownership is regulated in NYC but it is still alowed. The surrounding suburbs are much less strict in allowing concealed pistol carry. As a carrier of a concealed pistol I take great pains to avoid fights of any sort and I will first attempt to run away from any dangerous situation. I may only use deadly physical force when the same is being applied to me. We are not all cowboys in the U.S.
We love the British here. Why wouldn't you like us? Britain used to lead and the world would follow. Now it is the turn of the U.S..
You don't expect for instance that we take the French seriously. Do you?
We are not really concerned about whether other people love us. Hell, they must, we constantly have a stream of immigrants both legal and illegal. Everyone loves Yankee Greenbacks! Why?
I must say that English Soccer fans are really a tough crowd. I have never heard of American fans being banned in any country.
My hat off to you on that score.
After a thorough background check Englishmen should have the right to bear arms in their own defense.
We consider the English our cousins. Me, I have aunts, uncles , and a great many cousins still in England. Arm the citizenry!
Take back the streets and restore safety and order!
Let Englishmen be armed and free!
Man of Kent,
Don't you trust your countrymen to be responsible with the use of firearms. I trust them! Tony Blair is nice but he is a weakling!
Look to yourselves for safety. It is your God given right.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, "God save the Queen!".
They aren't shy of using them, that's the problem
No I don't. Hungerford and Dunblane saw to that.
Oooh, that a bit strong isn't it?
Tony Blair nice. Deary me, you have no idea do you?
You'll always find one or two incidents where people misbehave. Cars have not been banned yet . What about knives? I am told knives are a favorite for baddies over there. Are they banned?
The fact remains that the baddies get guns and are willing to use them. Honest people cannot get them. Crime is on the rise.
HHMMMMMMM!!! Man of Kent I believe in the people and not the upper ruling classes.
As for dear old Tony.....;)
If you ever come over to the states we'll arrange for you to go shooting. Nothing to be afraid of. You might even like it!
That misbehaviour cost over 20 lives. Nine of them were 5 years old.
Dude, that argument has been done to death here. Guns are designed to maim, they are killers weapon of choice. Case closed.
I do understand that people can use guns responsibly, but I am not willing to let children lives be put at the hand of another pissed of man with a gun. Fair enough if you are happy for events like Columbine to be repeated, in this country we aren't.
I have fired a few guns in my youth, and yes there is a buzz. Doesn't mean that I think everyone should be armed.
Brits don't want guns and don't see them as any solution to crime and disorder, IMO
Guns are designed to maim? Come again? Explain that one. I'd love to hear it. Really.
What do you think knives are designed to do?
Gee... guess it simply because that I am such a poor shot, that I have ALWAYS intended to kill the target when I pulled the trigger.
As far knives... ain't no difference. I either the miscreant or I pulls it, one of us is going to die... and it don't seem to have been ME yet...
I respect your opinion and your right to have it. I shall not try to convice you anymore. I feel that a man convinced against his will is not a man convinced at all.
What about the rights of folks who wish to own them? They don't count? I am sorry you feel that way but so be it.
Well, I'll continue to own and carry. I simply can't wait for the police to arrive when my life is on the line. You wish to face those who might try to kill you, unarmed. Best of luck to you sir! My cousin in Manchester has told me how "safe" it is over there. He told me he felt safer on holiday here in New York. Oh well.
I will say this though. When the garlic eaters start invading through the chunnel don't look to us to protect you!:D
G'night
Murph
What are they designed to do then?
Tickle?
Dunno about you but I've never met anyone who managed to slice a loaf, carve a joint or eat my dinner with a gun, have you? :rolleyes:
Let me turn the question around. If the knife is so deadly, why do you choose to arm yourself with a gun?
*Note: I know that knives can be used to kill. But what other use does a gun have?
Er...what right?
These is where we hit the really sticky part. Gun ownership isn't a right.
I was there a couple of weeks ago. In fact I was in Branningans (the place where the "Armed Clowns" incident happened) and to be honest, I never felt unsafe. Some of the friendliest people I've ever met. So much so that myself (and the people I was with) commented on how unfriendly they made my little area of the UK seem :eek:
Not worried about the French. Some'll collaborate (because they always do
So what is a gun designed to do then? Educate me, explain to me the reason for a guns existence...
Depends on the firearm. Some are designed to punch holes in paper. Others are designed to knock over bowling pins. Some are designed to destroy clay disks. Some are designed to KILL. Never seen one designed to maim, though.
Point of fact: Although I carry a firearm on my hip, always, and there is an AK-47 behind the seat of my truck, always... there are also one or more knives upon my person, always.
Not politically correct, I realize... but then, reality seldom is.
You would prefer a "large" arsenal, then?
Actually, it more clearly addresses my intent to not play the willing victim. Crime is no more prevalent in my country than in yours.
btw ~ do you buckle your seat belt? Do you wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle? Do you do it because you intend to be in a crash? Or to minimise the effect if the unthinkable actually comes to visit you?
Just cause you are willing to act the sheep does not mean the mugger may not choose to take your life anyway.
Not that likely one would imagine
Tell us about it after it happens to you...instead of "imagining" it.
Not for the standards that anyone chooses to carry one.
Its for those that choose to go against the standards that we choose to arm ourselves.
So? Some muggers kill in the process anyway. What then? It has been done before, why should they stop now? Most theives are paranoid and any little thing could set them off to get what they want. What if you cowered in such a fashion that when you moved your arm, they thought you were going to strike so they strike back? You're going to tell me you're going to do nothing?
Does your family feel the same way when you tell them about your life in such a sense?
Paranoia. I'm glad I don't live in your world. I'm not naive enough to believe that crime doesn't exists, but neither am I paranoid enough to think that I might get killed on any given day, by some moron out to nick my wallet.
Aladdin lives in London, the place you claim is crawling with armed killers on the rampage. Yet (shock, horror) he has no experience of the picture of London you paint.
Funny that.
I'm sure they are proud of the fact that he values human life (even that of a criminal) above the contents of his wallet.
As a Londoner, it depends on where you live, how you live -do you walk, drive, how you are percieved by others.
I know Tottenham, all that's reported goes on -crack, mugging, shooting, prostitution. Old ppl are very scared and do go out at night much at all