Originally posted by melmoth1

Originally posted by C-B-M

I'm pretty sure British police are still unarmed (they just carry batons).

 While most ordinary UK police are not armed with firearms, we do have special rapid armed response units in every city.

So if a criminal or suspect was armed with a fire-arm or reported as being so, then those chaps would be sent in.

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

  Yeah how long will it take the armed units to arrive though?..Surely any background checked policeman should be able to be trusted with a sidearm.Afterall if you can't trust a policeman ,who can you trust? If lethal force is needed is should not be hindered by logistics of certain police units.

I know handguns are banned in Britain  but I also know that Knife violence is high there also,a knife can be just as lethal or maybe even maybe more so sometimes than a gun with a skilled and commited user.If I were a police officer I would rather be able to use lethal force at a distance to protect civillians or him/herself before allowing a knife wielder to close in

 As an American I guess I don't really have a right to criticize laws of another countries' decisions but it just seems really strange to me as I think law enforcement should have every available tool or weapon at its disposal to be used at a moments notice,no offense mean't though.

Originally posted by Scubie67

Originally posted by melmoth1

Originally posted by C-B-M

I'm pretty sure British police are still unarmed (they just carry batons).

 While most ordinary UK police are not armed with firearms, we do have special rapid armed response units in every city.

So if a criminal or suspect was armed with a fire-arm or reported as being so, then those chaps would be sent in.

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

  Yeah how long will it take the armed units to arrive though?..Surely any background checked policeman should be able to be trusted with a sidearm.Afterall if you can't trust a policeman ,who can you trust? If lethal force is needed is should not be hindered by logistics of certain police units.

I know handguns are banned in Britain  but I also know that Knife violence is high there also,a knife can be just as lethal or maybe even maybe more so sometimes than a gun with a skilled and commited user.If I were a police officer I would rather be able to use lethal force at a distance to protect civillians or him/herself before allowing a knife wielder to close in

 As an American I guess I don't really have a right to criticize laws of another countries' decisions but it just seems really strange to me as I think law enforcement should have every available tool or weapon at its disposal to be used at a moments notice,no offense mean't though.

Unlike in the US when Police officers shoot people to death and use excessive force at handcuffed, deaf and disabled people that pose no threat.

Originally posted by Hekket

Muslims of course. Who else?

Right-wing gun nut.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Originally posted by Xirik

ahh so you moved on from Glen Beck to Mark Levin?

I can't wait to see posts like the beck ones. Such as

Mark levin says _____________

Mark Levin speaks the the truth

Mark levin pwns Obama

It's always amusing how people on the left say stuff like this.  Like "you cited Glen Beck, which therefore PROVES it's wrong!"  That's an extension of the "Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman" strategy.  You literally just define them as stupid until anything that they ever say equals "just plain stupid."  Then you never have to disprove anything they say or argue against it.  You just say "oh, MARK LEVIN said that?" and sit back with a shit-eating grin and nod to everyone else in the room.  Can you imagine if we could do that with the left?  Like, "Al Gore said that?  Oh, then it's false.  What do I mean?  AL GORE.  AL.  GORE."

That dipshit Xirik is supposed to be blocked on my computer. Must not be on my other computer. He was blaming xpowderx and Palin for the last shooting... 2 seconds after it was on the news. I would call him a drone except he is from Canada.

Originally posted by Forumfall

Let's say for the sake of argument, this picture is not accurate.

How many Christians does this guy represent, and how many Muslims does Osama represent?

What would be a real guestimate?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Forumfall

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, this picture is not accurate.

How many Christians does this guy represent, and how many Muslims does Osama represent?

What would be a real guestimate?

I'll go with about .03% for the Christian and go with about 2% for the Muslim.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Forumfall

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, this picture is not accurate.

How many Christians does this guy represent, and how many Muslims does Osama represent?

What would be a real guestimate?

I'll go with about .03% for the Christian and go with about 2% for the Muslim.

Ok, let's take that a bit further.

What would you guestimate that equates to in actual numbers?

Obviously 1% of a Billion is a lot more than 10% of 3, if you get the idea.

I find it amusing that someone is stupid enough to think that picture is meaningful.  All it demonstrates is a total lack of understanding of the situations beyond the most superficial.  Is the Norwegian guy representative of Christianity or viewed as a representative by Christian nations?  Is he embraced by Christians?  Did he recruit anyone?  Did he engage in a pattern of behavior over a long period of time?  Do I need to go on?

The most hilarious part is that this is the SECOND time that picture was posted.  Meaning, someone's actually BRAGGING that they're stupid.

I don't think he really represents "Christians" , he represents Ultra Nationalists. He just happened to identify himself to templars, but many who share similar views on multiculturalism, muslims, etc. are not christians, simply Ultra Nationalists.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Forumfall

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, this picture is not accurate.

How many Christians does this guy represent, and how many Muslims does Osama represent?

What would be a real guestimate?

I'll go with about .03% for the Christian and go with about 2% for the Muslim.

 

Ok, let's take that a bit further.

What would you guestimate that equates to in actual numbers?

Obviously 1% of a Billion is a lot more than 10% of 3, if you get the idea.

I'm not good at math. Could you do it?

2.1 billion Christians

1.6 billion Muslims

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Forumfall

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, this picture is not accurate.

How many Christians does this guy represent, and how many Muslims does Osama represent?

What would be a real guestimate?

I'll go with about .03% for the Christian and go with about 2% for the Muslim.

 

Ok, let's take that a bit further.

What would you guestimate that equates to in actual numbers?

Obviously 1% of a Billion is a lot more than 10% of 3, if you get the idea.

I'm not good at math. Could you do it?

2.1 billion Christians

1.6 billion Muslims

I don't think the numbers work.

It doesn't seem like .03% of Christians actually follow this "Christian" guy.

If that were true, wouldn't there be the "Christian" equivalent to Al Qaeda, The Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or at least SOME organizations?

But I don't know of ANY.

Do you?

On the other hand we do know Al Qaeda followed Osama bin Laden, and others have similar ideologies. We know these organizations recieve funds from countries like Iran, and "charities". We know that people in the streets have rioted supporting these ideologies, chanting death to anhyone that looks at a cartoon of Muhammed.

It doesn't seem that these percentages are correct, since we have little or no evidence of Equivalent "Christian" organization and activity, supporting killing the "infidels" or whatever term "Christians" might use for non-Christians.

It turns out this entire argument is taking place under a false premise.  As I suspected, Anders Breivik is NOT a Christian.  You can call him a right-winger.  He is definately an anti-Islamist.  And he is also strongly against left ideology like socialism.  But he is not a Christian.  Apparently what happened, is one of the police officers at the scene who was interviewed threw in the word "Christian" along with all the other stuff and the press ran with it (surprise, surprise).  But the truth is that he has never been seen carrying a Bible.  He doesn't quote scripture in his writings and he is not a member of any church.

So why is he being portrayed as a Christian?  My guess is it's an attempt by the press to place "radical" Christianity on equal footing with radical Islam.  They're probably going to get away with it for a larger portion of the population.  But if you dig into it, you will find otherwise.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

It turns out this entire argument is taking place under a false premise.  As I suspected, Anders Breivik is NOT a Christian.  You can call him a right-winger.  He is definately an anti-Islamist.  And he is also strongly against left ideology like socialism.  But he is not a Christian.  Apparently what happened, is one of the police officers at the scene who was interviewed threw in the word "Christian" along with all the other stuff and the press ran with it (surprise, surprise).  But the truth is that he has never been seen carrying a Bible.  He doesn't quote scripture in his writings and he is not a member of any church.

So why is he being portrayed as a Christian?  My guess is it's an attempt by the press to place "radical" Christianity on equal footing with radical Islam.  They're probably going to get away with it for a larger portion of the population.  But if you dig into it, you will find otherwise.

Actually I just saw it earlier when O'Reilly was on. Oh well, let MSNBC and the others continue to run with it. It's not like they have very many veiwers anyways.

Can someone repost that picture now, except make it so that the Norwegian guy represents all of humanity, since he does?  Thanks.

Wow. I see that David Koresh, Tim McVeigh and this twatbag are not "Christians," and nor, apparently, are they True Scotsmen.

The issue here is not whether "radical Christians" kill more people per day, week, hour, month or year than "radical Muslims." Of course radical Muslims do, partly because there ARE a lot more of them, and partly because the vast majority of them live in third-world hellholes where it's a lot more convenient for them to blow people up, and because that part of the world is rife with sectarian squabbles that have existed LONGER THAN CHRISTIANITY. And nobody is disputing that violence and terrorism from radical Muslims is something that should be ignored or anything like that.

The issue IS that every time some right-wing Christian nutjob pulls off an act of violence, the usual suspects whitewash it to paint that individual as "not  a REAL Christian" (as if the people who dropped the towers on 9/11 were REAL MUSLIMS) or other nonsense.

Right-wing, ultraconservative, ultranationalist xenophobia caused this tragedy. This is indisputable fact, and if you attempt to dispute it, you're an intellectually dishonest asshole who cannot see more than 3 inches in front of him. Fact. Period. End of fucking story.

---

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

I don't think the numbers work.

It doesn't seem like .03% of Christians actually follow this "Christian" guy.

If that were true, wouldn't there be the "Christian" equivalent to Al Qaeda, The Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or at least SOME organizations?

But I don't know of ANY.

Do you?

On the other hand we do know Al Qaeda followed Osama bin Laden, and others have similar ideologies. We know these organizations recieve funds from countries like Iran, and "charities". We know that people in the streets have rioted supporting these ideologies, chanting death to anhyone that looks at a cartoon of Muhammed.

It doesn't seem that these percentages are correct, since we have little or no evidence of Equivalent "Christian" organization and activity, supporting killing the "infidels" or whatever term "Christians" might use for non-Christians.
 

---

The problem we have here is that someone here "knows" things that are utterly absurd, and if this person wasn't so intent on displaying appalling ignorance of reality would be laughable.  Why would Iran (which is a Shia country) support Al Qaeda  (which is Sunni based) at all?  The fact of the matter is the Shia and the Sunni, at the exreme ends, are deadly enemies.  Al Qaeda is as much an enemy of Iran as it is of the United States and the rest of the West.

The appalling ignornance of what is "Islam", when it's as fractured and diverse as Christianity is, destroys whatever argument you're trying to make, because it's based on pure prejudice uninformed by any fact.  "We know" is just pure garbage.  Utterly without any basis in observed reality.

If you're going to operate in this manner, then this guy in Norway is a perfect representative of all things Christian.  Because you apply that very trope to any Muslim off the street.

You are hoist on your own petard of illogic and intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by SioBabble

 

---

Originally posted by Ihmotepp  

I don't think the numbers work.

It doesn't seem like .03% of Christians actually follow this "Christian" guy.

If that were true, wouldn't there be the "Christian" equivalent to Al Qaeda, The Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or at least SOME organizations?

But I don't know of ANY.

Do you?

On the other hand we do know Al Qaeda followed Osama bin Laden, and others have similar ideologies. We know these organizations recieve funds from countries like Iran, and "charities". We know that people in the streets have rioted supporting these ideologies, chanting death to anhyone that looks at a cartoon of Muhammed.

It doesn't seem that these percentages are correct, since we have little or no evidence of Equivalent "Christian" organization and activity, supporting killing the "infidels" or whatever term "Christians" might use for non-Christians.  

---

The problem we have here is that someone here "knows" things that are utterly abusrd, and if this person wasn't so intent on displaying appalling ignorance of reality would be laughable.  Why would Iran (which is a Shia country) support Al Qaeda  (which is Sunni based) at all?  The fact of the matter is the Shia and the Sunni, at the exreme ends, are deadly enemies.  Al Qaeda is as much an enemy of Iran as it is of the United States and the rest of the West.

The appalling ignornance of what is "Islam", when it's as fractured and diverse as Christianity is, destroys whatever argument you're trying to make, because it's based on pure prejudice uninformed by any fact.  "We know" is just pure garbage.  Utterly without any basis in observed reality.

If you're going to operate in this manner, then this guy in Norway is a perfect representative of all things Christian.  Because you apply that very trope to any Muslim off the street.

You are hoist on your own petard of illogic and inttelectual dishonesty.

Killing for Allah is killing for Allah.

I don't deny radical Islamists of various organizations kill each other for Allah, as well as non-Muslims.

This has been a fact ever since modern "Jihad" and radical Muslim terrorism started .

Most victims of radical Islam are probably Muslim.

Originally posted by kobie173 And nobody is disputing that violence and terrorism from radical Muslims is something that should be ignored or anything like that.

Actually, people on this very forum have made that argument. It's not really any more of a problem than purse snatching, and should just be a law enforcement issue, like jay walking.

Anything else is just "bigoted against brown people".

After all, it's "blowback" and evil white imperialists deserve to die for the horrible wrongs they've done to poor innocent radical Islamists.

Originally posted by kobie173

Wow. I see that David Koresh, Tim McVeigh and this twatbag are not "Christians," and nor, apparently, are they True Scotsmen.

The issue here is not whether "radical Christians" kill more people per day, week, hour, month or year than "radical Muslims." Of course radical Muslims do, partly because there ARE a lot more of them, and partly because the vast majority of them live in third-world hellholes where it's a lot more convenient for them to blow people up, and because that part of the world is rife with sectarian squabbles that have existed LONGER THAN CHRISTIANITY. And nobody is disputing that violence and terrorism from radical Muslims is something that should be ignored or anything like that.

The issue IS that every time some right-wing Christian nutjob pulls off an act of violence, the usual suspects whitewash it to paint that individual as "not  a REAL Christian" (as if the people who dropped the towers on 9/11 were REAL MUSLIMS) or other nonsense.

Right-wing, ultraconservative, ultranationalist xenophobia caused this tragedy. This is indisputable fact, and if you attempt to dispute it, you're an intellectually dishonest asshole who cannot see more than 3 inches in front of him. Fact. Period. End of fucking story.

The fact of the matter is, any time an incident like this occurs, the media rushes to judgement and declares that it must be those terrible Muslims who are doing it.  They did this in the OKC bombing as well...for two days, all the speculation, with absolutely no basis in any verified fact, was that it had to be Muslims.

Of course, when we find out it was a white self identified Christian, a former soldier who had been in the first Gulf War, the tropes change.

Suddenly, the incident is no longer a political statement, but the work of a deranged madman.  It's not "terrorism" anymore, because, obviously, only Muslims can be "terrorists."  Even though McVeigh ADMITTED to a political motivation, and chose the date of the attack for a specific political and RELIGIOUS reason.

This scenario plays out again in the case of the Norway incidents.

Then we start seeing an innudation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that makes the mythical great flood look like a puddle on the sidewalk.