trumps tweet is direct banter where sadiq khan said in a recent bbc interview when he said there no reason to be alarmed and to carry on.

Instead of hating trump for his words maybe you should get angry at the English response which is to heighten internet censorship. Words<actions

It has been known for a truck to kill six people because the medically unfit driver passed out at the wheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_G...in_lorry_crash

Did that medically unfit driver then get out and start attacking people with knives?

No, but it took a while for the use of knives to figure in the reports on Saturday night. And bear in mind that police initially thought there was a terrorist incident going on at Vauxhall station at the same time, but there wasn't. A member of the public had reported an apparent stabbing, but in fact police said that, although the member of the public acted in good faith, there were no injuries and no arrests were made.

So instantly clutching one's made-in-USA pearls and going 'Omigahd it's Radical Islamic Terrorism we're all gonna die we're all gonna die aaaaaargh!' at the first sign of trouble is not always the correct response.

I'd go out on a limb and say if a vehicle plows into some pedestrians it's not safe to assume it's a terrorist attack. If a car plows into pedestrians and gets out and starts shooting or stabbing people it's most likely a terrorist attack.

Either way, I don't see the advantage of having everyone be silent until it's confirmed. Is that a moral victory or something in your book?

It's better to watch and see for a while. People remember things poorly in a way that tends to overemphasise the danger. It only helps the terrorists cause to leap to the worst conclusions every time anything happens. Bad enough that we have to report what actually happened without adding too it. It does no harm to wait for a few minutes/hours

We had posters here leaping to the conclusion there were three coordinated terrorist attacks and claiming that this proved something or other about the danger. It wasn't true and it really doesn't help.

Plus it

ldo it's just about not jumping to hysterical conclusions.

But I realise that's going to be hard for you.

I still don't understand what you get out of it. Who cares? What difference does it actually make?

Years ago if I was at a large event and I hear an explosion I'd assume some sort of pyrotechnics went off or there was an accident. Today, I would break camp. Same thing with a plane hitting a building. Before 9/11 it was assumed it was an accident. If that happened today it's time to grab your stuff, roll out and call it a day.

Things are not the same as they used to be and if you choose to hang loose, fine by me. Knock yourself out.

Because what people believe/feel makes a big difference to the decisions they make and the actions they take. Some will be delighted to whip up hatred and anger and many will succumb to it. Keeping it as accurate and reasonable as possible are important.

That's aside from the less political reason which is that some want our beliefs to coincide with reality as much as possible. We have to constantly guard against cognitive biases.

Ok. But I'm still breaking camp.

It's not really the same point. Concern for personal safety isn't a bad thing although too much fear may contribute to events such as these.

More than 1,500 Juventus fans in Turin injured after stampede
• Witnesses suggest firecrackers mistaken for explosions caused panic and crowd surge
• Three people seriously hurt, including seven-year-old boy

https://www.theguardian.com/football...c-firecrackers

Did you try reading the post he was responding to?

This happened just last week:

lol. You guys are terrible at this.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Big Willy is out that mfer, though.

As far as the "don't jump to conclusions", I'm simply saying it doesn't really make much of a difference. At this point as soon as anything happens it's reported on the news right away and plenty of recent events have turned out to be something completely different than expected (at least, by me), so yeah, I guess don't jump to conclusions is prudent. I just don't see what makes you so happy about that. It doesn't really make any real difference, even moreso if you aren't running around with a bullhorn and screaming it being "islamist terrorism" or whatever it is you think people do.

In other words, even if you get what you want and no one thinks a thing until things are confirmed, so what?

Whatever we do we will be wrong sometimes. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter what we do.

Nothing makes me happy about any of this, just trying to handle a bad situation as best as possible. If we're in the vicinity of an incident then we're correct to be alert/wary and may be forced into a decision on very limited information. When were sitting safely at home watching it on TV or on the internet then, for reasons I explained above, we can stick to the emerging facts while we wait a few minutes/hours for more information.

Maybe you should ban all posts about any potential acts of terrorism until all the facts are released, just to be safe?

Can we go back to wil potentially binding his daughter's feet?

This old rehashed material is tired.

That's especially feeble.

Kellyanne Conway, in a weekend interview, blasts the media for covering Trump's tweets

Meanwhile, her own husband seems to think they're pretty important:



lol

In more Kellyanne news:



Britain has been attacked 3 times in the last 3 months and everyone on the right...
- praises Theresa May, who is the leader of the country and thus nominally responsible for counterterrorism and protecting the country
- bashes the mayor of one of the cities that was attacked

I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with the fact that May is a conservative and Sadiq Khan is a liberal Muslim, right? This is just an accurate and reflective division of blame between country and city leaders, right?

edit: Theresa May's job before she became PM was specifically being in charge of security as Home Secretary!!

Khan's message has been one of acceptance. May's has been one of action to address it.

Gee. What's the difference? Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, ex-jihadist, and he's embraced by conservatives.

Wtf is wrong with you?

no one who isn't a neo con is praising the moralist **** known as Teresa may

That's false. Right after the attack he said:

He wrote an article today slamming the perverse ideology embraced by terrorists. "Acceptance"? lol, you read his "part of living in a big city" comment once upon a time on The Daily Caller or something and will thus never actually process another word he says for the rest of your life.

I find this surprising, here's what Wikipedia tells me about him:

These aren't things conservatives agree with!

It's good to know that it's just the message that matters, though. Like, all those times Obama was criticized for being President when an attack happened in America - it was because of his words, not his actions, he's not actually responsible for any of the attacks on this country, right?

In light of this importance of responses, I'm curious what you think of Trump's response. The New York Times initially reported in their headlines on the London Bridge attack that Britain was "reeling" as a nation, and that headline was widely mocked around the UK for its cynicism and alarmism falsely painting them as a defeated nation. I'll give you three separate takes on that you can read as you wish:
- The Guardian: London Bridge attack brings out defiant British humour
- Russia Today: New York Times mercilessly mocked for ‘nation reeling’ headline following London attack
- Daily Mail: 'Don't confuse grief with lack of courage': Britain hits back against New York Times claims nation is 'still reeling from Manchester terror'

We can all agree, lol NYT on this one. But if we agree on that, can't we also lol Donald Trump for taking that **** the NYT was smoking and dialing it up to 11?

As the Washington Post put it: Trump was terrorized by the London attack, while Britain stood firm

WTF is wrong with you? You're wrong about everything here and you clearly know nothing about Khan or May.

She was Home Secretary for six years before becoming PM. You hail her as "taking actions to address" the problem. What actions are you referring to?