You have no room to speak here. You are an enlisted man with a high school degree but act as if you have a doctorate in multiple fields of science and social sciences.
The thread is about a terrorist attack in London. This is the mayor of London being questioned by reporters who also live in London. I would think the tie in to the thread would be obvious. But I forget I'm among the tin foil hat crowd who always assumes an ulterior motive. I'll turn the question around on you. Why are you so interested in defending the man? Is he the Mayor of a city that just had 2 major terrorist incidents or not? Asking questions about security priorities is considered an attack now? The criticism was the idea that the Mayor claims to know there are 200 members of ISIS who actually fought in Syria in London and that the Mayor's excuse for not tracking these people was a lack of funding (these are HIS words). Unless they are funded at $0.00, then obviously some funding is there...but tracking potential terrorists is apparently not at the top of the priority list. The obvious question (which the interviewers were pushing) was WHY NOT?!?! Nowhere in my posts or the video posted was there any criticism of the police. Bringing that up is deflecting from the point of the video and a strawman.
Bobbythegreat said: ↑ Well as for me, I'm not a Republican, I got a laugh out of that. You just always vote Republican when you vote. lol
I rarely vote Republican. In fact, I almost always vote Libertarian when I vote. Gotta love the ignorant assumptions of people who see things as being binary. People made fun of Dubya for "with us or against us" comments but here we are....
Bobby once posted that killing ten civilians would be acceptable in order to kill one terrorist. I want this guy to stop taking my tax dollars for his military welfare check. There are many many brave and heroic members our armed forces. Unfortunately, there are also people like Bobby. Sample the mind of Bobby "The Widowmaker" The Great, accepting your tax dollars to pay for his meds and FoxNews cable package:
I do think it's funny that you think anything I said in that quote was inaccurate and I also think it's funny that you somehow think that you can use my veteran status as some weird way to insult me....and I'm not sure what even you think you mean by "military welfare check", but I'd suggest you just stop embarrassing yourself now. Of course I know ahead of time that you aren't intelligent enough to take my advice, but it's just me doing the right thing by trying to help you out despite the fact that you don't deserve it.
I see that you responded, Bobby, but I don't know what you said. Stop taking our tax dollars. You're basically on military welfare, then you go talking about how no one else deserves government help but you. You are the fattest welfare queen of all.
You have a real problem with honesty and integrity as the quote has been shown to you repeatedly..... It has..... this a forum that easily tracks posts..... Would you like for to make you look embarrassingly stupid and incompetent and show you exactly where myself and others have posted it? Yes or no? Yea haven't..... You posted snippets of various quotes from the speech that intentionally give a false summation of the speech. Getting "paraphrasing" partially wrong isn't making communication difficult, it's just a useful deflection when you are being dishonest. Khan warned London citizens that there would be a more visible police force and to not be alarmed. Do you agree, yes or no?
And of course he wasn't intelligent enough to take my advice just as I predicted. I mean, sometimes it's nice to have him here to provide the terrorist sympathizer perspective on things, but he really does get tiresome at times.
In general I believe in lending support to those suffering from a terrorist attack. It's one area where everyone should come to their aid in order stand together against terrorism. Let's start with that. Second, I'm defending him because the attacks against him are off target and So you are attacking the mayor. Why did you try and act like you weren't? Did the mayor's budget about which you are so concerned about, include any training of those police forces? Did it include supplying them with equipment, communications etc.?
The Mayor isn't the "victim" of any attack. He is one of the ones responsible for insuring others AREN'T victims. Apparently, 7 dead people is ok in your book because after all, they were doing their best and nobody should ask what could be done differently right? Don't want to hurt any feelings or heavens forbid be accused of 'islamaphobia'...amiright? Virtue signaling at its finest. I was asking very serious questions that others in London are asking. That is not an attack. An attack is what the terrorists did. Calling asking serious questions to the Mayor "an attack" is a joke and insulting to the dead and their families. Prioritizing money to track and halt the attack before it began would be a FAR better investment. Stopping an attack beforehand would have saved 7 lives. Doing it his (and your ) way cost the lives of 7. Why are you so convinced everything is perfect in London with tactics and priorities?
Well we' be been bombing and meddling in Muslim countries for nearly a century.... maybe antagonism isn't very helpful? Perfect in London with tactics and priorities? Interesting choice of words. It is a very safe city and I'm sure policies and tactics will be reviewed.
What exactly is "meddling"? Are you implying that any "meddling" we stop doing will stop terrorism on our lands? From Terrorism? Most american cities (with the exception of 3-4) are far safer from Islamic terrorism than London is currently.
Safer in general. London's 2016 murder stats are available to compare to US cities, and you can do the same for 2017.
No argument. But the thread is about Islamic Terrorism and how London apparently has hundreds of active Jihadi's living there. My point (and the interviewers) is, why aren't they making tracking them their HIGHEST priority rather than stating they can't do so because of "budget" issues. It's not a budget issue (unless the budget is 0). It's a priorities issue.
Exactly? It's funneling money and weapons to groups and leaders who will support our agenda in their country. It's taking sides on issues that align with our agenda. It's being arbiters on national boundaries. Come on, it's pretty self explanatory. I'm not remotely implying what you are saying.
There are different levels of government there, the Mayor of London relies on national funding just like the mayor of NYC. Did the Mayor of NYC get an unlimited budget to address terrorism after 9/11? That is the buck doesn't stop with the mayor. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the mayor to just direct all available resources and future financial obligations. I'd imagine that England has been making this a very high priority for sometime considering how important London is.
Ok, well in the context of a thread about terrorism and a discussion about how a London Mayor could best use the budget he has to stop it, your mentioning "meddling" as a cause (or Status Quo if you prefer) is confusing. What was your point?
