Well its a start

darknessss wrote:thats where you are wrong...the nightmare is NOT over.....

and Still my question remains unanswered

THE STATE FAILED in its greatest obligation...

It is guilty of criminal negligence

It offered to swap security for disarming

It failed

what now????

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:thats where you are wrong...the nightmare is NOT over.....

and Still my question remains unanswered

THE STATE FAILED in its greatest obligation...

It is guilty of criminal negligence

It offered to swap security for disarming

It failed

what now????

It did not fail, you cannot premeditate such an attack without intelligence, so no they did not fail the people that is absurd and disgusting to say and the kind of views that insults the victims.

Thats not MY problem....the state said "give up your right to self defence and we will protect you (and charge you a fortune for doing it too) It is not my problem if it cannot keep up its end of the bargain.  The state is simply going to have to do better....dont ask me how, unlike your self I'm not an expert

Of course the state could appologise for failing to protect its people and admit openly it is impotent to do anything....

and this aspect of course doesnt ONLY apply to terrorist actions

the police no longer (did they ever ) prevent crime...they merely "chase it...when they can be arsed

over here we cant even carry pepper spray to ward of the would be body vandal     we have to "accept it"


Sorry I find your views at times appalling and are more about your backward views on such situations where you think now by such a belief then every murder in any nation is the country failing.
People like yourself have no comprehension of anything and wish to use such a situation as a means to strike fear as the terrorist do into making people take a wrong view of other people.
Now Muslims who have no culpability here will no doubt face backlash from people with similar views to you.

So what now, concentration or interment camps for all Muslims to satisfy your paranoia?


So you support the govt "two facedness" then

It WARNS people to "be alert" to be "cautious" but then fails to say what next....

so what do we now do.....

be alert...your country needs lerts

darknessss wrote:



Thats not MY problem....the state said "give up your right to self defence and we will protect you (and charge you a fortune for doing it too) It is not my problem if it cannot keep up its end of the bargain.  The state is simply going to have to do better....dont ask me how, unlike your self I'm not an expert
Yes it is people like you that are the problem just as extremists are the problem, People are murdered around the world for many reasons, you cannot preempt many of them and hy your views as if to Blame France of which you offer no reason of which I can guess is based off a backward view around a religion as if it is an entity and that because of this association we should fear all Muslims.

Of course the state could appologise for failing to protect its people and admit openly it is impotent to do anything....
So you want the state to say sorry that they cannot have an armed body guard for every civilian from all violence and any murder?
Do you claim the same in any crime or only a Terrorist crime?
You see your logic is completely absurd and contradicts as you do not request for any murder

and this aspect of course doesnt ONLY apply to terrorist actions
OMG, seriously are you for real?

the police no longer (did they ever ) prevent crime...they merely "chase it...when they can be arsed
Babble, the fact crime is decreasing in many European countries shows just how much you fail to see the facts

over here we cant even carry pepper spray to ward of the would be body vandal     we have to "accept it"
So you want to be armed, why?
Do ou know you have more chance of being killed by lightning, run over and countless over possibilities and do you fer walking outside in a storm and protect yourself in complete rubber, or never walk the streets in case you get run over?

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:



Thats not MY problem....the state said "give up your right to self defence and we will protect you (and charge you a fortune for doing it too) It is not my problem if it cannot keep up its end of the bargain.  The state is simply going to have to do better....dont ask me how, unlike your self I'm not an expert
Yes it is people like you that are the problem just as extremists are the problem, People are murdered around the world for many reasons, you cannot preempt many of them and hy your views as if to Blame France of which you offer no reason of which I can guess is based off a backward view around a religion as if it is an entity and that because of this association we should fear all Muslims.

Of course the state could appologise for failing to protect its people and admit openly it is impotent to do anything....
So you want the state to say sorry that they cannot have an armed body guard for every civilian from all violence and any murder?
Do you claim the same in any crime or only a Terrorist crime?
You see your logic is completely absurd and contradicts as you do not request for any murder

and this aspect of course doesnt ONLY apply to terrorist actions
OMG, seriously are you for real?

the police no longer (did they ever ) prevent crime...they merely "chase it...when they can be arsed
Babble, the fact crime is decreasing in many European countries shows just how much you fail to see the facts

over here we cant even carry pepper spray to ward of the would be body vandal     we have to "accept it"
So you want to be armed, why?
Do ou know you have more chance of being killed by lightning, run over and countless over possibilities and do you fer walking outside in a storm and protect yourself in complete rubber, or never walk the streets in case you get run over?

Seriously are you that much of a bunny rabbit you fail to see how there is a far greater probability of being killed by countless more reasons, yet you allow irrational views to make you think you now need to be armed, yet do not protect yourself against other dangers?

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Seriously are you that much of a bunny rabbit you fail to see how there is a far greater probability of being killed by countless more reasons, yet you allow irrational views to make you think you now need to be armed, yet do not protect yourself against other dangers?

and you are a blithereing idiot....
Clearly upset because I just exposed your errors

90% of the "dangers" I have some degree of ability to mitigate
As seen you clearly do not

I.E by being alert in traffic by defensive driving
You cannot predict if a care loses control, a driver has a heart attack etc, showing you have no conception and cannot prepare for many a eventuality

I dont know about YOU but I was taught by my driving instructor years ago to "drive as if everyone else on the road is a potential homicidal maniac out to flatten you"
Which is not going to save you as many people still no matter how careful they drive die in fr greater numbers than being murdered over 20 years

I can even mitigate the danger of the feeble minded body vandal by "not looking like a victim" (apparantly?) and quite bluntly by kicking any such person teeth down their throat
Complete babble, no you can do somethings but cannot prepare for all eventualities
however If I should do so I would be the one charged....WHY?
of course the answer is that my right to self defence is totally neutered...
Your right to be over paranid, is not a right, as seen you have far more chance of being struck by lightening than terrorism and yet do nothing to prepare for that

moreover


YOU clearly fail to see the difference between an "accident" i.e getting run over.....
Really, I think not

and deliberate killings.....which are not accidents nor are they acceptable as such in the "risks we all face index"
There are way more accidents than murder, so your view is absurd

a certain amount of "happenings" of course are BOUND to be potentially fatal
however a fatalistic view of deliberate attacks of any sort is not acceptable..
The point is deliberate attacks are imiscule compared to fatalities in accidents and errors of driving, showing you have no comprehension here and fear more something which has less probability of which you cannot even prepare for
.
In fact taking that view point is cowardice and PURE APATHY from the lefties because the alternative to being fatalistic about it involves too much thinking and so many hard choices that the "suck it up " lefty" is in danger of its head exploding.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:


and you are a blithereing idiot....
Clearly upset because I just exposed your errors

90% of the "dangers" I have some degree of ability to mitigate
As seen you clearly do not

I.E by being alert in traffic by defensive driving
You cannot predict if a care loses control, a driver has a heart attack etc, showing you have no conception and cannot prepare for many a eventuality

I dont know about YOU but I was taught by my driving instructor years ago to "drive as if everyone else on the road is a potential homicidal maniac out to flatten you"
Which is not going to save you as many people still no matter how careful they drive die in fr greater numbers than being murdered over 20 years

I can even mitigate the danger of the feeble minded body vandal by "not looking like a victim" (apparantly?) and quite bluntly by kicking any such person teeth down their throat
Complete babble, no you can do somethings but cannot prepare for all eventualities
however If I should do so I would be the one charged....WHY?
of course the answer is that my right to self defence is totally neutered...
Your right to be over paranid, is not a right, as seen you have far more chance of being struck by lightening than terrorism and yet do nothing to prepare for that

seriously...you are a plonker...you do realise that most (if not all) "victims" of lightening (in britain at least ) actually "asked for it" by being in the wrong place at the wrong time(out of choice...like golfers /fishermen/hikers) or out of stupidiy.....like sheltering under the only tree for miles around....
In britain we dont get lightening "out of the blue" It tends to come with warnings.....like dark clouds, blutery gusty winds and gumblings in the distance (not to mention wet, over warm winds headaches and that "oppressive thundery feeling"

let us dismiss this nonsense once and for all......

Risks Posed by Lightning to People
Lightning is dangerous. Currently, about 30-60 people are struck by lightning each year in Britain of whom, on average, three may be killed.

from http://www.torro.org.uk/site/lightning_info.php


so thats 30 (on average per 10 years)

the single attack on 7/7 killed 56 and injured 700 not to mention the many other deaths from terrorism of all kinds

So NO MR over sized cranium.......you are NOT more likely (statistically) to be killed by lightening than by terrorists.

which just shows how the left like to lie with half truths and statistics......

Busted.....




moreover


YOU clearly fail to see the difference between an "accident" i.e getting run over.....
Really, I think not

and deliberate killings.....which are not accidents nor are they acceptable as such in the "risks we all face index"
There are way more accidents than murder, so your view is absurd

a certain amount of "happenings" of course are BOUND to be potentially fatal
however a fatalistic view of deliberate attacks of any sort is not acceptable..
The point is deliberate attacks are imiscule compared to fatalities in accidents and errors of driving, showing you have no comprehension here and fear more something which has less probability of which you cannot even prepare for
.
In fact taking that view point is cowardice and PURE APATHY from the lefties because the alternative to being fatalistic about it involves too much thinking and so many hard choices that the "suck it up " lefty" is in danger of its head exploding.

Yes you are a coward as I have just exposed, you fear something far less probable happening to you,( That is only historically true...the chance is increasing exponentially) to act like a bunny rabbit and as seen you have no logic to your views, where things which are far less likely to happen to you make you act irrationally

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes you are a coward as I have just exposed, you fear something far less probable happening to you,( That is only historically true...the chance is increasing exponentially) to act like a bunny rabbit and as seen you have no logic to your views, where things which are far less likely to happen to you make you act irrationally

and of course you fail to answer the points....because like a typical leftie becuase yo have no answers you "pretend" there is no problem.

Brasidas wrote:Come on smelly, you always goof up.

Brasidas wrote:Why edit and not make a new one, is that so you attempt something very underhanded mate, that I may not see ha ha.

no obvoiously not as I pointed your attention to it...doh!

So not a plonker, the fact is you have more probability of being struck by lightning than being a victim let of terrorism,

read it again...the facts say otherwise....or are you now going to deny hard facts and substitute your own fantasies instead?



so why are you not running with your tail between your legs in a storm?
Do you have a contingency if there is a storm?

yer...I stay indoors...I have an inbuilt dislike of becomming unnecessarily wet.....


So 3 people killed a year by lightning and thank you for posting, how many by terrorism in the UK in 2014?

1
So 3 people killed bylightening in 2005  how many by terrorism in 2005 ......56


Thanks for proving my point, you cannot go off one year, but many years and you assume on how many have been killed by lightning but not give figures. (Again you LIE and accuse me of not providing figures ....liar liar pants on fire......I quoted the source in my post ....) Your view is off the amount on one attack which shows you do not even understand how to calculate probability ha ha

which is why i say you lefties are liars and twisters....I gave you avaeraged statistics over 10 years.......

3 per year for lightening strikes so 30 in 10 years

if you include soley islamic terrorism (which is not really fair but gives a lower bound) (which is actually to YOUR advantage) the the total is about 60 in the 10 year period

so 6 per year on average......

twice as many

So this is just lightning, how about road accidents?

Great Britain has one of the best road safety records in Europe and the world. Despite massive increases in traffic over the last few decades, the number of people killed on our roads has fallen from around 5,500 per year in the mid 1980s to well under 1,754 in 2012. However, this still means that five people die on Britain's roads every day.


Best we ban all cars eh mate?

sounds good to me.....

however you cannot actually conflate "accidents" and deliberate killings.....that is more lefty disingenuity..... As I have said...i stand a better chance of evading the errant vehicle than the jihadi nut job.....(but that is on a single incident basis of course.....)

darknessss wrote:
thats where you are wrong...the nightmare is NOT over.....

and Still my question remains unanswered

THE STATE FAILED in its greatest obligation...

It is guilty of criminal negligence

It offered to swap security for disarming

It failed

what now????

Lone Wolf wrote:

darknessss wrote:
thats where you are wrong...the nightmare is NOT over.....

and Still my question remains unanswered

THE STATE FAILED in its greatest obligation...

It is guilty of criminal negligence

It offered to swap security for disarming

It failed

what now????

MORE Bullshit from the Right Wing fringe Looney Toon brigade...

HOW'S it going with those National Front meetings..

darknessss wrote:

no obvoiously not as I pointed your attention to it...doh!
Failed logic again

read it again...the facts say otherwise....or are you now going to deny hard facts and substitute your own fantasies instead?
What facts, your maths is shockingly poor, this is only one kind of fatality as well, talk about clutching at straws
yer...I stay indoors...I have an inbuilt dislike of becomming unnecessarily wet.....
So you do not like to wash then?

(Again you LIE and accuse me of not providing figures ....liar liar pants on fire......I quoted the source in my post ....)
You quoted over only a few years, which you set the standard, that is not how probability works mate

which is why i say you lefties are liars and twisters....I gave you avaeraged statistics over 10 years.......
Yes 10 years, which is why your view is flawed and based off one attack, which is another error, hence why You have no conception of probability, which shows you are not that bright a bunny. Do you understand that point?
By the way you know Tories are not left wing do you not?

3 per year for lightening strikes so 30 in 10 years

if you include soley islamic terrorism (which is not really fair but gives a lower bound) (which is actually to YOUR advantage) the the total is about 60 in the 10 year period
Failed logic again, you use fatalities off one attack, failing to understand the probability of a successful attack, you have 4 in ten years compared to how many successful lightning strikes that hit humans?
I allow you to do the maths on that

so 6 per year on average......
Very wrong on that

twice as many
Doh

sounds good to me.....
So you want to ban all modes of transport, how will you get people to hospital in an emergency, or food to people, or food to the elderly etc?

however you cannot actually conflate "accidents" and deliberate killings.....that is more lefty disingenuity..... As I have said...i stand a better chance of evading the errant vehicle than the jihadi nut job.....(but that is on a single incident basis of course.....)[/color]

darknessss wrote:
The two brothers suspected of attacking the offices of Charlie Hebdo have reportedly been killed and their hostage freed.

Gunshots have been heard at the Dammartin-en-Goele factory where brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi were holed up with a 26-year-old male hostage.

According to media reports in France the brothers have been killed and their hostage freed.

................................

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

no obvoiously not as I pointed your attention to it...doh!
Failed logic again

read it again...the facts say otherwise....or are you now going to deny hard facts and substitute your own fantasies instead?
What facts, your maths is shockingly poor, this is only one kind of fatality as well, talk about clutching at straws
yer...I stay indoors...I have an inbuilt dislike of becomming unnecessarily wet.....
So you do not like to wash then?

(Again you LIE and accuse me of not providing figures ....liar liar pants on fire......I quoted the source in my post ....)
You quoted over only a few years, which you set the standard, that is not how probability works mate

which is why i say you lefties are liars and twisters....I gave you avaeraged statistics over 10 years.......
Yes 10 years, which is why your view is flawed and based off one attack, which is another error, hence why You have no conception of probability, which shows you are not that bright a bunny. Do you understand that point?
By the way you know Tories are not left wing do you not?

3 per year for lightening strikes so 30 in 10 years

if you include soley islamic terrorism (which is not really fair but gives a lower bound) (which is actually to YOUR advantage) the the total is about 60 in the 10 year period
Failed logic again, you use fatalities off one attack, failing to understand the probability of a successful attack, you have 4 in ten years compared to how many successful lightning strikes that hit humans?
I allow you to do the maths on that

so 6 per year on average......
Very wrong on that

twice as many
Doh

sounds good to me.....
So you want to ban all modes of transport, how will you get people to hospital in an emergency, or food to people, or food to the elderly etc?

however you cannot actually conflate "accidents" and deliberate killings.....that is more lefty disingenuity..... As I have said...i stand a better chance of evading the errant vehicle than the jihadi nut job.....(but that is on a single incident basis of course.....)[/color]

I can indeed as this is about the probability of how you might die and a fear of how you might be killed, yet you have far more probability of being struck by lightning and being killed by this than you do of terrorism, let alone the countless other examples I can give you my little bunny rabbit

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I can indeed as this is about the probability of how you might die and a fear of how you might be killed, yet you have far more probability of being struck by lightning and being killed by this than you do of terrorism, let alone the countless other examples I can give you my little bunny rabbit

After the events of the last few days I suggest you go over there and tell THEM that....see how long it is before someone punches your lights out

Lone Wolf wrote:

darknessss wrote:
The two brothers suspected of attacking the offices of Charlie Hebdo have reportedly been killed and their hostage freed.

Gunshots have been heard at the Dammartin-en-Goele factory where brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi were holed up with a 26-year-old male hostage.

According to media reports in France the brothers have been killed and their hostage freed.

................................

AND good riddance to bad rubbish, I say...

A fitting end for all terrorists, mass murderers, serial killers, traitorous dogs, 'one percenters', carptbaggers..

SIMPLE enough to keep Islamic terrorists and mass murderers out of their imaginary "rewards" in a fabled Paradise ~ delay their burial/cremation for a couple of days, or dump them at sea.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

After the events of the last few days I suggest you go over there and tell THEM that....see how long it is before someone punches your lights out

So after you just realized your maths was utterly wrong and you do not understand how to calculate probability , you deflect by going on about France and not the UK where you live.
That is very odd thus conceding your claim I guess.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So after you just realized your maths was utterly wrong and you do not understand how to calculate probability , you deflect by going on about France and not the UK where you live.
That is very odd thus conceding your claim I guess.

no, pointing out your logic is not "reasonable"

oh and btw...just how many years DO you want figures averaged over ...let me guess......enough to blur the reality to your favour....
as to ME setting a 10 year standard....
at least I dont try to redefine the meaning of a word in defiance of all academics in order to "win" an argument.....
unlike your good self.....

try debating without twisting facts and meanings....I might take you seriously then.....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:
no, pointing out your logic is not "reasonable"

oh and btw...just how many years DO you want figures averaged over ...let me guess......enough to blur the reality to your favour....
as to ME setting a 10 year standard....
at least I dont try to redefine the meaning of a word in defiance of all academics in order to "win" an argument.....
unlike your good self.....

try debating without twisting facts and meanings....I might take you seriously then.....

You still struggle to grasp probability.
Lets try again, how many lightning strikes happen over the last ten years?
Between 300 and 600
How many terrorist successful attacks in the last 10 years?
4


how many did those 3-600 lightening strikes kill   approx 30

how many did those 4 terroist attacks kill       60

clearly terrorist attacks are far more deadly than lightening


so which probabilty are we talking about

the probability of being struck by lightening vs the probability of being involved in a terrorist attack in which case i will conceede the former is more probable


OR the probability of being KILLED by lightening vs the probability of being KILLED in a terrorist attack    in which cas I am correct


OR the OVERALL probability of being killed by either, given that at least for the moment we can treat both as  randomly occurring In which case I am STILL correct.....

not only that but give the distribution of both occurences

those who liuve in big cities are LESS likely to be struck by lightening...(simply because ther are a lot of large buildings around with lightening conductors...) and at the same time MORE likely to be the victims of terrorism (since attacking a major city is MUCH more newsworthy than holding a whole pub as hostages in "dropped knickers by the sea")

so you are twisting things again.....and again.....and again


you name isnt NERO is it.....you know fiddling (i dont want to know what with) while rome burns??



You never got your GCSE at maths did you.

Brasidas wrote:Ha ha, he still does not get it. So wound up as well his post is merged with mine.

Brasidas wrote:4 attacks, one kills 56 people.
That means in one attack you would have to be in the wrong place in four areas only for you to be unlucky to die.
There are 300 to 600 hits to humans in the same length of time for lightning where 30 (at least maybe more) are fatal meaning you can be killed in at least 300-600 different areas compared to four.

Your chances are far more then of dying by being struck by lightning than by a terrorist attack

Probability not your strong point is it smelly ha ha or Matti.

This is just on lightning and I can show as seen road accidents dwarfs terrorism, where does that leave your argument?

In the toilet mate.

Brasidas wrote:So at least you concede and you admit you cannot do anything about it (what is "it") and that your maths is shockingly poor even more o I guess you had to ask.

Do you pay the state to protect you from lightning?
Of course but they cannot predict if you will get hit by lightning or be a victim to a murder or a road accident or terrorism.
They do spend billions on intelligence and why this country has had great success thwarting terrorist attacks in this country.
You might want to be grateful for that son.

oh i am.....but I'm NOT impressed when "one gets through"...and it will...for the reasons given

Until the next time, but please stop being a scared little bunny rabbit.

thats where you are wrong.....why do you make false accusations...is that another tory tactic...oh....wait......

you "ascribe" things without evidence oh hang on...that would be another tory trait.....

ahh...I see now....

your not a coward.....your a coservative (teaparty-ist) (read idiot)



Have a good evening

darknessss wrote:I'll tell you what....

I bet if the "one that gets through" actually hurt those in power we would see a different tune than we are hearing
I bet that suddenly there would be all sorts of restrictions upon certain groups .....
I bet there would suddenly be a rush to arm as many police as possible or get the military out here on the street...
but probably ONLY where those in power live meet and play
the rest of us could just go "suck it up"

and I bet BRA would be all in favour of it.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:I'll tell you what....

I bet if the "one that gets through" actually hurt those in power we would see a different tune than we are hearing
I bet that suddenly there would be all sorts of restrictions upon certain groups .....
I bet there would suddenly be a rush to arm as many police as possible or get the military out here on the street...
but probably ONLY where those in power live meet and play
the rest of us could just go "suck it up"

and I bet BRA would be all in favour of it.....

While a state could never safeguard against all terrorism, it can prevent many attacks.

you see this is the point....I agree....It cant

however

what is WRONG is that the state (here) has robbed me of my right to bear arms and thus the right to self defense

even to the point where if I was to be assaulted in a common criminal attack by the "feeble minded body vandal" and defended myself successfully it is likeley that I would be prosecuted for grievious bodily harm  (let me tell you it would be greivious ....gotta make the inevitable prosecution worth it)

The problem is that the more it invests and sacrifices to prevent them, the higher the likelihood that it becomes oppressive and actually inspires more attacks. Look at the U.S. overreaction to 9/11 and how that was used to recruit many more terrorists.

Lone Wolf wrote:

I RECKON our new friend 'darkness' has had his/her "lights punched out.." once too often...

METHINKS that would go someway towards explaining his/her hatemongering and addled thinking..

darknessss wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

I RECKON our new friend 'darkness' has had his/her "lights punched out.." once too often...

METHINKS that would go someway towards explaining his/her hatemongering and addled thinking..

I notice you input is limited soley to personal attack

clearly you have insufficient intelligence to offer anything of substance....

what is your level of intellectual achievment eh?

jack and jill perhaps?

or the "ladybird keywords reading scheme"?

or perhaps you have only just graduated from sucking mummys tit....

darknessss wrote:so you like little wolfiekins hanging on your coat tail...adding nothing and merely being an offensive twat....
says a lot about you.....

hows about you telling HIM to wind his ignorant neck in....

lets be quite clear about this .....

HE is the one that, without reason, started "name calling"

and moreover has added NOTHING not one whit of anything to the matters in hand


I respond to people as they respond to me.....

there are two things that boil my piss....

arrogance

and

ignorance

you exemplify one of those  Him the other.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:so you like little wolfiekins hanging on your coat tail...adding nothing and merely being an offensive twat....
says a lot about you.....

hows about you telling HIM to wind his ignorant neck in....

lets be quite clear about this .....

HE is the one that, without reason, started "name calling"

and moreover has added NOTHING not one whit of anything to the matters in hand


I respond to people as they respond to me.....

there are two things that boil my piss....

arrogance

and

ignorance

you exemplify one of those  Him the other.

Rant rant rant