I don't really understand what you're trying to say. It's not really meaningful to say they're killing people "in the name of Islam". We know they're Muslims. We know they have a particular ideology that involves their religion. What does it do to point that out? What conclusion do you want us to draw from it?

I do understand that this kind of "thinking" is common. It's what leads Birdman to defend kleptocracies because they claim to be "communist". But someone's saying they believe what you believe doesn't a/ mean that they actually believe what you believe or b/ mean that you believe what they believe or crucially c/ mean that you are in any way responsible for what they do.

I'm a bit sad that you retreated fully into self-parody.

While world leaders sent their condolences to the British people after the recent attack, the man you voted for wrote:

"Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"

I'm embarrassed for you, man.

The point being, this man is so grossly delinked from reasonable thoughts about anything that we are right to be scared what he might do, or might be led to do. There are people who want horrible things to happen. In some ways, the "establishment" is a brake on their ambitions. You asked for them to have their way and let loose chaos.

He also quoted the Mayor of London out of context to launch a ludicrous attack on him in a way that would be disgusting for any commentator, let alone the ****ing president.

surely the fact that the terrorists had to use knives and so were relatively easily neutralised by gun-wielding police is a feather in the cap of gun control anyway?

like, if those nutters had guns as well, far more people die

Yes, exactly. He actually made the opposite argument to the one he thought he was making because he's not very bright.

Dude those attacks hadn't even happend yet when i wrote that post

Interesting: http://johnpilger.com/articles/terro...-minister-know

I think one of the problems you face in evaluating the Pilgers et al of this world is that they have a picture that they try to fit bits into. Just like the corporate media. So is his analysis correct? Probably not entirely. But there's very likely some truth in it. Libya is ****ing murky. I don't think there's much doubt that the British secret services were involved with Libyan groups and certainly Libya was a "**** show" that bore no resemblance to the official story.

And you can be sure that the media didn't cover the outcome of the inquiries as frantically as it did the need to bomb Gaddafi in the first place.

It's interesting though that May has now decided that our policy has been wrong. She set the policy in the first place! She forgot to mention that. And what does she propose to do? Bring in new laws to control the internet. Try to prevent the use of encryption.

Hmmm.

He didn't become an idiot overnight buddy.

Why would a travel ban help prevent events like Manchester? It was carried out by a British resident. Nearly all terror attacks are carried out within an hour of the perpetrators' homes.

Here's what your boy's about:

Capital letters for the slow learners among us.

Tax cuts for the rich. That'll show those establishment bastards, hey? Smash their taxes! They hate it when the poor are ****ed over, don't they?

Destroy health care! Establishment weeps!

His response to terror attacks in the UK was to say it proved everyone wrong about his travel ban.

Salman Abedi was born in the UK. He lived in Manchester. Sure, it might have been helpful to ban him from going to Libya if we had known what he was doing there, but no Trump-style travel ban would have prevented that attack.

Or pretty much any other that has occurred, except for 9/11. Whose perpetrators came from countries not on the travel ban list.

I have a good friend who is libyan, and who spent a decent amount of time in libya following the fall of gadaffi until things really did become a **** show. Maybe things were always going to turn into a **** show, I don't know, but I think it is fair to say that there was a decent amount of optimism in libya immediately and for a time after gadaffi fell, and it wasn't the case that it was a straight line from the end of gadaffi to where we are now.

I was being provocative.

The quotation is seemingly something like "does Islam push people towards doing more bad things". Maybe it's just a clash of cultures, maybe it's just there are lots of people and some will do bad stuff. Or lots of other reasons.

Does Christianity push people towards doing bad things? The population of the US is maybe 1/7 of the number of Muslims in the world yet the US military has at least 10x the number of members of ISIS, and the US military also has a habit of killing civilians from other countries for abstract reasons.

See how easy that is?

Oh, you got me!

We can **** on christianity and the US later, and we do it a lot? Right now that is not the topic.

As an aethiest I'll rarely hard defend religion, although I'm not as against it as most seem to be. Although they all love to defend it in weird spots.

I like how the lib line against bringing up something against muslims is so predictable it seemingly is spread by some sort of brain implant trigger.

"This is the line we are going with, if we all say it enough it will appear to be like a legitimate argument!"

What does that say about the person who trots out a trite argument without knowing how to refute the standard response?

Christianity seems to push some people towards bad things
Islam seems to push some people towards bad things
Hinduism seems to push some people towards bad things
Marxism seems to push some people towards bad things
Libertarians mostly want to deregulate in order that the invisible hand can do the bad things.

What's the uniting factor?

oversimplification?

I even forwarded other reasons other than "muslims are all bad" and left it open ended

i realized my friend was trolling me about german idealism after he linked me this

Facebook is letting me know that the SCOTUS is going to hear a case on whether police need warrants to access past cell phone location information

Facebook knows what I want.

No, it's an argument against gun control, as something could have been done to stop the carnage much sooner than the 8 minutes it took from the time the emergency call was received until the men and women with guns arrived to shoot to stop the threat. The something that could have been done is for the folks who had been disarmed by their government to be able to defend themselves against the threat of imminent great bodily harm.

He graduated from Wharton.

I know I'm "very bright."

So you're wrong on this issue.

You said "resident." If we had a travel ban, the bad guys wouldn't be able to reside here to carry out the attack. This is true of Britain and could be true of those would do a similar type of attack here in America.