I’m wondering what the real reason could be, he wanted to maintain a good relationship with Russia but I don’t see Putin backing down from this.
As you said, there’s no way he truly did it because of the pictures of children, because that’s nothing new in the middle east. He probably lost a lot of supporters because of this, not that it matters because he’s already President.
I’m also pretty sure the action he took was unconstitutional, it bypassed Congress.
I honestly think it happened because Trump felt like it. Nothing about this indicates much consideration or planning. There was little to no consultation with allies - Though the Pentagon claims they told Russia in advance as they have ground forces near the vicinity.
I may be wrong but my understanding is that the President can unilaterally authorize military action for 60 days with no Congressional approval.
The biggest difference is that this is the first direct attack by the US on the Syrian Government.
Edit - Allegedly, 4 children and 6 soldiers were killed in the bombings.
Can you please post a picture of the suspects, because the suspect (s) is not caught yet:
Mr Lofven said a suspect had been arrested in connection with the attack, which is reported to have involved gunshots, in the Swedish capital on Friday afternoon. However, Swedish police later said no one had been arrested over the attack.
Thanks, I was definitely exasperated. It just seems to be every month someone does this “drive a car into a crowd” shit lately. Copycats and so on. Luckily the deaths as a result seem to be fewer and fewer each time.
First of all, why the hell aren’t you a voice actor? Get on a cartoon/videogame ASAP.
Second of all, a one-time injection doesn’t seem all that bad to me, We (we being men) have the luxury of not having to worry about managing reproductive systems. When compared with menstrual cycles, UTIs, yeast infections, pap smears etc, a one off injection into yer neitherregion doesn’t sound like that bad of a deal.
It’s a once a decade injection, actually. It wears off and is meant to be reversible. That said, any complications that could arise are sure to be horribly painful and would defeat the purpose of it being reversible. I might be making it seem worse than it actually is, but if it gets bad, it’ll be nightmarish.
I’m back, been extremely busy and haven’t been online for a bit.
Yes he is a well know hate preacher and he embraces it, you, I and the general public know he is but PC never has called him (or charged him) on the hate he spreading. It’s just his connection with ISIS that he got nicked for. It is a double standard because we all know what he is but we have to follow rules in order to find proof before he can be removed and never got done for the hate on western people and their culture.
LOL What? Yup a half cast person doesn’t see people as British because of their skin colour. Thanks for the laugh man. Despite I’ve already wrote:
You still try to lie about me. Please do read everything I write before assuming once again.
If PC would fuck off for once and stop prancing about, worrying about feelings and shit. People can get things done. State it how it is without people assuming “you attacking me”. As you say, if the shoe fits… nothing to do with me.
So I’m an nationalistic for not agreeing with the attempts of forced, primitive, barbaric, unfair, unequal, belittling, unruly, disproportionate Sharia Law in UK? LOL The only truth to that is I honestly do think our culture and ways of fair and freedom of democracy is a future I would live for until I die. Or, I would go to the Middle East otherwise. But I believe in everyone in equal opportunity for anyone.
Agreed. I meant the laws behind it seem to focus hate crimes for racism and not other types like subcultures, which I feel is silly The fact they had to turn to public debate shows that the law needs to cover this more so like racial attacks are hate crime if that’s the motive.
Why write “(lol)” when talking about the amount of people killed by Anjem indirectly then?
I read his article and actually specifically defined the acknowledgement of the racial profiling. That’s what I was debating about in the first place.
It was a tongue in cheek manner, and as someone who grew up in an area with the generation of chavs. Majority of them from my school do the things I mentioned anyways.
Nine arrests now made since 17-year-old was set upon by large gang when he told them he was an asylum seeker.
And that’s all you needed to post. See what facts can do? Confirmation of subjects results in clear, concise answers. Now the what ifs and buts can be eliminated and we can agree the result and the scumbags get done.
It’s not stubborn, it’s stepping back and analysing the situation clearly and understanding motives reasons for the attack. I don’t let feelings get the better of me, just results and conclusions then we can relax. Hence why PC is pathetic, it’s like a red tape of words.
When are you going to stop your assumptions? Where did you ever come to these results lol? Despite me already stating the known facts about the attack, it left holes in motive (at the time of reading). And considering I’ve already acknowledged people lashed out on foreigners…so…explain where you’re getting these ideologies from? Once again please read everything of my replies otherwise we have to go round in circles repeating myself so you can understand clearer.
Once again putting words in my mouth without argument. Basic of questions? Where three articles I read as they were top at the time:
Did not clarify the “talking and finding out” bit. It’s a huge piece of info. And can only refer to information from articles.
When gangs from different backgrounds fight, it should be called a hate crime right? Or too many labels?
More childish drivel. No because people in my personal like speak factually and straight to the point without crying over tit for tat feelings and coming to conclusions without a full understanding. Now the crucial piece of information is out especially defining a hate crime from motive. I can agree with out on the result. See what facts can do instead of feelings.
Exhibit A ladies and gentleman. See you’re super “passionate” over a person who is hurt but still alive nonetheless, despite the motive. But you didn’t even explain or even bother to mention the deaths of people once again. Or are you going to pretend it was make believe?
What don’t you fucking get about it? It’s nothing about racial, colour, motive in this sense. HE IS ALIVE AND RECOVERING. It’s is a positive outcome to the situation. While PEOPLE ARE DEAD. Wake the fuck up seriously. You can’t just fucking respawn like a game. It’s not about rating “which is worse” it’s about the severity of the outcome. No one should die from other person’s motive but guess what we’re in the real world.
So clearly you don’t care at all then. Is this your sick way of trying to justify the death of a policeman? ‘Oh it’s just a low statistic’. That doesn’t change if that policeman had a defence, the stat could still be 26. And where did you get routinely from? I never said that. Oh wait you assume. Got ya. I said in high terror/key areas. London is a high terror zone, it’s been said many times both by government and public acknowledgement.
Oh and as we’ve concluded you take everything literal. I don’t mean a policeman on exactly every corner FYI so you can relax a bit now. You, I or anyone (unless intel obvs) knows when or where an attack can come from. If we have the ability to make the attacker dead in under a minute or in a few. I know what I want. Like I said, it’s not a utopia where we can sing and dance our way through life. Sometime we need to fight fire with fire if it means safety of the people. But no meh anxiety… give me a break. You go right ahead a sing to ISIS or whatever fucker wants to hurt us and see where it’ll get you.
Err you do know she said it openly broadcasted right? You do know you can access her speech again? Feel free to re-listen to it. Count how many buzzwords she chucks out in false hope of “inspiration” and morale of the people. Exactly they chose to not learn from the deaths of the public. Decided for all of us that the best approach to react to the obvious security issue and the loss of life is by… wait for it… words and nothing. Woo. Theresa May clearly never learned Sticks and Stones rhyme as a kid.
Let me put it this way:
You have a broken pipe with a gap that you can’t repair 100% and underneath this pipe, the most precious thing in your life, if it goes, it goes. The pipe runs fine most of the time. You have the ability to patch up the pipe but meh. Now one day a flash flood comes and the water falls down the pipe and ruins that precious thing. What would you do in response?
Now I for one would try to repair it to the best of it’s ability with tape as the guarantee of the gap in never certain but more secure and less chance for that water to hit the precious thing. But as you agree with May and are defending her decision, you clearly leave it open for the next flash flood.
Here’s a glossary to help you not take it literal:
Pipe - Living day by day
Gap - Security
Precious Thing - Human Life
Flash Flood - Terrorist
Water - Death
Tape - Add more armed police
Back to hyperbole I see. You just see things black or white without a single ounce of understanding to compromise. While I purposefully laughed off police state many posts ago. And you actually taking it this far? Or are you trolling? Once again you make shit up because as we can see you have to go all the way without learning to adjust to increase or decrease areas and then say “You have no idea what you’re suggesting?” Without me 1. Even saying that 2. Even replying to the comment your assumptions came from.
So some how you jumped from allowing police in London to be more armed to curfew and martial law. Wow. Just wow.
I agree. It is impossible to be risk free. As is it’s impossible to be risk free from many things so we might as well not bother than? Is that what you’re saying? Closing the gap of risk where possible without even touching any type of liberties (where you rambled off onto for no reason) is and should always be welcome. Where does this curfew and shit come into play exactly? And where I propose it?
Do explain where I said we needed to live and hide? Thanks. Nice try though.
So effectively you’ve made shit up from your mindset, then believed it as if I said it, then proceeded to argue it. Soooo you’re technically arguing with yourself
Exactly my point. Nothing is certain. But reducing the risk of the terror to spread is a must from me. The closer a policeman with a gun is to a threat, the faster that threat is eliminated. If a guy had a gun, he can keep going and killing until there is a equal to defeat the threat. The more them equals are to come the harder the threat can spread.
As horrible as it is I’d way rather 1 people be victim to terror than 10 or 100.