Here we go again - Terror in England


Recommended Posts

Here we go again - Terror in England

It's young girls this time.

TERROR AT TEEN CONCERT
Manchester Arena explosion at Ariana Grande gig kills 19 and injures 50 as cops swarm to treat wounded concertgoers

Islamic terrorists.

As President Donald Trump said:

"Drive them out.
Drive them out of your places of worship.
Drive them out of your communities.
Drive them out of your holy land.
Drive them out of this earth."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here we go again - Terror in England

It's young girls this time.

TERROR AT TEEN CONCERT
Manchester Arena explosion at Ariana Grande gig kills 19 and injures 50 as cops swarm to treat wounded concertgoers

Islamic terrorists.

As President Donald Trump said:

"Drive them out.
Drive them out of your places of worship.
Drive them out of your communities.
Drive them out of your holy land.
Drive them out of this earth."

Michael

He might have added:  "Kill them all!  Kill them all and let  Allah dispose of the bodies"  But he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am ready to get tough on terrorism, for real, with overtones of James Bond, closed borders unless we invite you here, and getting rid of the bad immigrants and mullahs. Terrorism is not acceptable no matter what justifications are used. Now they are targeting little kids. That is an evil that should be destroyed, here, in England and in the homeland of those monsters.

We are fighting a malignant, terrorist force that has initiated violence against us. During WWII it was all out war. It is now all out war. I think we should nuke them where they live, knowing we are not targeting civilians but those civilians are allowing the terrorists to survive and kill innocent kids.   

Peter

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Peter said:

I am ready to get tough on terrorism, for real, with overtones of James Bond, closed borders unless we invite you here, and getting rid of the bad immigrants and mullahs. Terrorism is not acceptable no matter what justifications are used. Now they are targeting little kids. That is an evil that should be destroyed, here, in England and in the homeland of those monsters.

We are fighting a malignant, terrorist force that has initiated violence against us. During WWII it was all out war. It is now all out war. I think we should nuke them where they live, knowing we are not targeting civilians but those civilians are allowing the terrorists to survive and kill innocent kids.   

Peter

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quote

Who dropped context?  Countries do not wage war,  people wage war.  When fighting these people, there will be collateral damage.  This cannot be prevented. Unfortunately, in dictatorships, innocent folks can be made into accomplices to the wrong doings of the leaders.  They are not guilty in the sense of willing evil, but they become the instruments of  evil doers.  When we fight such evil  we are bound to kill and maim people who had no ill intentions toward us. But we have little choice.  If we hesitate to attack full force the evil doers will be using the innocent as shields.  So my advice to people in nations that have leaders of doubtful morality and judgement is to prevent these people from taking their nation to war,  even if there is a risk in attempting to prevent war.  The alternative is to do nothing an later on become unfortunate inheritors  of collateral damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those interested:

Michael

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek,   rip his head off and spit down his neck.

If thine enemy kills your kids,  then  reciprocate at a ratio of 10:1 (at least)

Actually  if you fix it so your enemy has no children  then the problem disappears in the next two generations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from Paul Joseph Watson.

He showed a lady in the previous video and commented about her again in this one. Before the explosion, this lady tried to report someone exhibiting suspicious behavior. She was scolded. The police asked her how she would feel if someone said she was suspicious.

Good Lord! With police like that, who needs bad guys to make a disaster?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now