Explosion on a tube at Parsons Green

LAS said it had taken 18 people to a number of London hospitals. “None are thought to be in a serious or life-threatening condition,” a statement said. Four others went to hospitals independently.

Could have been so much worse.

The only thing that needs cutting off is the idiots twitter account.

SDAddick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

The great thing about Trump is he waits to get a detailed picture of events before passing comment. We're lucky to have such a shrewd and wise operator as President during these troubled times.

I think the USA should extend the travel ban to include European countries given recent terrorist events here.

Nah Trump has business dealings in Europe.

bobmunro said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

The great thing about Trump is he waits to get a detailed picture of events before passing comment. We're lucky to have such a shrewd and wise operator as President during these troubled times.

I think the USA should extend the travel ban to include European countries given recent terrorist events here.

I would be happy with just extending the travel ban to Trump visiting the UK.

Mate we feel like a single parent with an incredibly difficult child. You have to understand we really relish the time when he's away. We finally get some bloody peace and quiet. Please do us this favor?

Ask me anything but that!!

#prayforparsons

There , that should help.

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Greenie Junior said:

Trump is brilliant

At demonstrating his stupidity? What goes on inside his brain?

He is like a vague teenage boy, mostly he looks at women and thinks BOOBIES.

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Greenie Junior said:

Trump is brilliant

At demonstrating his stupidity? What goes on inside his brain?

Generally, after any terror incident, we have the following two trains of thought:

1) Don't react/rise to it. Keep going as is, keep acting lawfully, and remember that these people are not at all representative of the ideology they claim to adhere to.

2) Tighten up laws and security (e.g. the lethal injection comment). Perhaps increase state powers so we are better prepared to prevent terrorist attacks/apprehend the perpetrators.

By and large, you will find the "lefty soppy liberal naive wankers" under point 1, and the "right-wing fascist racist bastards" under point 2.

I'd like to take both points 1 and 2 to (what I see as) their logical conclusions, hopefully fairly balancing their upsides and downsides.

1) We create an environment more welcoming to marginalised; minority; or persecuted groups. We attempt to bond/socialise/identify with said groups, thereby (presumably) leading to fewer incidences of terror after we create a welcoming society in which there is no incentive to create division.

However, this comes at the risk of terror groups taking advantage of opening up a social dialogue, who would then continue to attack our freedoms/ideas/values/infrastructure/population.

2) We tighten up laws re terrorism. We hand over more powers to the authorities. This has the (presumed) benefit of ensuring fewer incidences of terror, as the authorities are better-equipped to prevent them. We would also be able to persecute terrorists to a greater extent, thereby disincentivising perpetrators from carrying out attacks.

However, this would potentially lead society as a whole to compromise certain civil liberties - e.g. freedom of speech; increased surveillance; special/emergency powers restricting freedoms for *all* in the event of a threat. In turn, this could lead toward more of a police state, with an increased societal division/less cohesion and cosmopolitanism. This in turn could lead to more marginalised people getting radicalised.

[NB I forgot to consider immigration/asylum, but basically 1) more open borders = better societally for already-settled minority populations, but more risk; and 2) closed borders = less risk, but possibly more marginalising for minorities.]

--------------------

Ultimately, I would guess that people like Leuth/Chizz/myself would take point number 1 over point number 2. That's because of the values we hold dearest - freedom of expression; movement; thought; and all those classically liberal ideas. This comes at a risk of safety.

Those who'd rather point 2, by extension, hold safety and a strong state safety net in higher regard, even if that means compromising civil liberties. This comes at the risk of a more fractured and divided society.

The question is - what do you hold dearest? For me, it will always be ideas, freedoms, and an open society.

... I'm not quite sure what my initial point was going to be, so much as - when you're debating with someone on such a topic, perhaps it's worth considering their values - and examining your own. I've thought about this and am willing to trade off safety for inclusivity (to be *very* basic about it). Others might not be.

PaddyP17 said:

Generally, after any terror incident, we have the following two trains of thought:

1) Don't react/rise to it. Keep going as is, keep acting lawfully, and remember that these people are not at all representative of the ideology they claim to adhere to.

2) Tighten up laws and security (e.g. the lethal injection comment). Perhaps increase state powers so we are better prepared to prevent terrorist attacks/apprehend the perpetrators.

By and large, you will find the "lefty soppy liberal naive wankers" under point 1, and the "right-wing fascist racist bastards" under point 2.

I'd like to take both points 1 and 2 to (what I see as) their logical conclusions, hopefully fairly balancing their upsides and downsides.

1) We create an environment more welcoming to marginalised; minority; or persecuted groups. We attempt to bond/socialise/identify with said groups, thereby (presumably) leading to fewer incidences of terror after we create a welcoming society in which there is no incentive to create division.

However, this comes at the risk of terror groups taking advantage of opening up a social dialogue, who would then continue to attack our freedoms/ideas/values/infrastructure/population.

2) We tighten up laws re terrorism. We hand over more powers to the authorities. This has the (presumed) benefit of ensuring fewer incidences of terror, as the authorities are better-equipped to prevent them. We would also be able to persecute terrorists to a greater extent, thereby disincentivising perpetrators from carrying out attacks.

However, this would potentially lead society as a whole to compromise certain civil liberties - e.g. freedom of speech; increased surveillance; special/emergency powers restricting freedoms for *all* in the event of a threat. In turn, this could lead toward more of a police state, with an increased societal division/less cohesion and cosmopolitanism. This in turn could lead to more marginalised people getting radicalised.

[NB I forgot to consider immigration/asylum, but basically 1) more open borders = better societally for already-settled minority populations, but more risk; and 2) closed borders = less risk, but possibly more marginalising for minorities.]

--------------------

Ultimately, I would guess that people like Leuth/Chizz/myself would take point number 1 over point number 2. That's because of the values we hold dearest - freedom of expression; movement; thought; and all those classically liberal ideas. This comes at a risk of safety.

Those who'd rather point 2, by extension, hold safety and a strong state safety net in higher regard, even if that means compromising civil liberties. This comes at the risk of a more fractured and divided society.

The question is - what do you hold dearest? For me, it will always be ideas, freedoms, and an open society.

... I'm not quite sure what my initial point was going to be, so much as - when you're debating with someone on such a topic, perhaps it's worth considering their values - and examining your own. I've thought about this and am willing to trade off safety for inclusivity (to be *very* basic about it). Others might not be.

I think that this is very similar to the Apple vs Android debate.

1StevieG said:

The only thing that needs cutting off is the idiots twitter account.

You say nothing about the terrorist who committed thus vile act, but have a snide dig at our closest allies leader.

Palarsehater must have house in the right wing bingo by now.

alan dugdale said:

And still people would rather write about their hatred for a President based thousands of miles away, than the evil, twisted slags who plant bombs on a train. Unbelievable.

THIS

alan dugdale said:

And still people would rather write about their hatred for a President based thousands of miles away, than the evil, twisted slags who plant bombs on a train. Unbelievable.

A president who put himself into the discussion.

You almost make it sound as if anyone who doesn't write a generic "I detest terrorists" post on a football forum shouldn't be allowed to talk about anything else remotely connected to the subject.

alan dugdale said:

And still people would rather write about their hatred for a President based thousands of miles away, than the evil, twisted slags who plant bombs on a train. Unbelievable.

However people spell things out for you which must have been done a million times you still don't really get it. The concern of many is that we have a President whose main response to terrorist events is to send ludicrous half baked tweets and impose nonsensical travel bans.

I along with many others would like a solution to the terrorist threat rather than people just constantly telling us terrorists are bad dudes. Trump is one of the most powerful people in the world and the fact that he's such a Grade A dumbarse just makes the terrorist threat worse.

I'm sure everyone agrees terrorists are awful people but moving forward we need to find a solution. I don't really know how you expect people to communicate?

If Trump behaved like a normal politician and showed a bit of decorum then people might not comment on him. We need to find a solution to the problem which involves a bit of intelligence and not knee-jerk reactions.

There are plenty of lessons to be learnt from history.