'Van hits pedestrians' on London Bridge in 'major incident'

[Kutnupe14]

I appreciate your candor in the same way I appreciate it when a gun control advocate actually calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't agree, but at least the honesty is refreshing.

TT is one of the very few on iNGO that makes his opinion explicitly clear. Can't find fault with a guy who unapologetically tells you exactly where he stands.

 

[OakRiver]

When tackling violent extremism the two most common solutions are;
1) Kill them all, burn their lands, salt their earth
2) Love them and hug them

These solutions are not mutually exclusive as both are needed. Military and intelligence action is required to prevent or disrupt the ability of hostile elements to carry out their attacks. While this may be effective it also does not bring an end to any conflict when your opponents are a decentralized group. To bring the conflict to a conclusion while you are taking care of the current generation of hostiles you also need to be focused on disrupting new recruits and preventing the next generation of hostiles. To do that you do need education, partnership, and understanding with moderate elements not opposed to your existence. That way potential recruits have a path other than violence.

That is the theory. In practical terms there are many challenges, especially on the current geo-political stage with current events and also past history.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

When tackling violent extremism the two most common solutions are;
1) Kill them all, burn their lands, salt their earth

Some INGO users have no qualms with eradicating 24% of Earth's population (unless they have a method of picking and choosing. Women and children have also been shown to commit acts of violence...)

2) Love them and hug them

that's a lot of hugs.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm for #1 if and only if we are talking about actual terrorists. If not, #2.

 

[hog slayer]

I'm for #1 if and only if we are talking about actual terrorists. If not, #2.

Yes! This!

At what point is one considered a terrorist?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes! This!

At what point is one considered a terrorist?

Born into a Muslim family?

 

[OakRiver]

London Bridge Attack: American Hit in Head by Police Bullet, Witness Says - NBC News

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Oooo, we all know Mr. Choudary. Wonder if this may finally get him shut down.

 

[JTScribe]

Oooo, we all know Mr. Choudary. Wonder if this may finally get him shut down.

Why am I hearing Mr. Obvious in my mind?

"CALLER . . . your neighbor was a follower of Choudary? THAT'S why he's trying to stab you!"

 

[tv1217]

One of the attackers names was Khuram Butt. The jokes write themselves.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

One of the attackers names was Khuram Butt. The jokes write themselves.

Rectum?! Nearly killed 'em!

 

[tv1217]

Those who knew him say he was an ass.

 

[Denny347]

Oh sure there is. Atheists have lots of faith in what they believe in.

Respectfully, atheism is a LACK of belief in God and without that there can be no faith. But I kinda understand where you are coming from...kinda

Not to mention they proselytize more than a Jehovah Witness.

To be fair, us skeptics are not nearly as visible/vocal as the theist crowd.

I didn't mean to derail this thread too much. Like many things here, we will just have to agree to disagree like the gentlemen we are, pats on the back and hand shakes. Smiles all around

 

[spencer rifle]

To be fair, us skeptics are not nearly as visible/vocal as the theist crowd.

Of course. To paraphrase one of your folks (Penn Jillette): "If you really believe what you say you believe - that you have the only way to Heaven or Eternal Life - how much would you have to hate someone to not tell them?"

 

[ghuns]

One of the attackers names was Khuram Butt...

It's actually Arabic for, guy who takes it in the keister in hell.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Respectfully, atheism is a LACK of belief in God and without that there can be no faith. But I kinda understand where you are coming from...kinda

Sure one can have faith even if s/he rejects God. As and example, many people believe in macro-evolution to explain the current state of the world. They have no scientific basis to rest this belief on. They have faith that it happened.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sure there can be faith even if one rejects God. As and example, many people believe in macro-evolution to explain the current state of the world. They have no scientific basis to rest this belief on. They have faith that it happened.

Would you agree there is more evidence of evolution than there is the also unverifiable creation theories? (Obviously we're branching out from other threads at this point)

We work with the information we have... be it books or scientific research.

 

[hog slayer]

Which of your responses to the 5 basic worldview questions requires the most faith?


Let's look at the 5 basic foundational worldview questions: Look for consistency, but look for yourself.
1) Origin - how did this whole thing (earth, space, etc) begin?
2) Identity - What's my identity in all of this?
3) Meaning or purpose - Why am I here?
4) Morality - where do we get our sense of right or wrong?
5) Destiny - when I die, where I spend the rest of eternity? Dirt? Second life? Possibly with God (insert the word Father here for a real treat).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would you agree there is more evidence of evolution than there is the also unverifiable creation theories? (Obviously we're branching out from other threads at this point)

We work with the information we have... be it books or scientific research.

What kind of evolution? That man evolved from fish or that some birds of the same species have longer bills or different makings than others, in different locations?

The latter is verifiable the former is conjecture. It's reading a bunch of dead bones, throwing in a comet or asteroid, making some SWAGs, maybe making a show for Discovery Channel with some cool animation and viola!---a widely accepted theory is adopted. There is no proof of evolution of kinds--one kind into another.

If information in old books is so valuable, why is the Bible rejected out of hand? Some things are hard to prove (like the flood). Others are based on eye witness accounts. Why would they lie? Take the likes of Peter, Paul, etc... why would they lie? They certainly didn't become wealthy and powerful by spreading the word. Most of them died horrible deaths -- that's a high price to pay for a book of lies. (At least what would become a book).

 

[hog slayer]

Would you agree there is more evidence of evolution than there is the also unverifiable creation theories? (Obviously we're branching out from other threads at this point)

We work with the information we have... be it books or scientific research.

No. You make a hasty generalization and are begging the claim.