Jump to content

Muslim terror attack on London Bridge


Tarne

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Why are you being so cretinous.  No one on here is siding with the terrorists.  I suspect even RB will admit it was legitimate to shoot the guy.  That isn't what you are asking.  You're demanding we dick wave that we'd be rushing in instantly to be the hero.  It is easy to pretend, but in a surprising show of maturity, most MF'ers are being realistic in wondering how they'd react.

Have you read the thread?

I haven't even spoken to 'We' let alone 'demanded'.

I asked a question (not posted a demand) to P.K. 

That does not invoke either 'We' or 'Demand' does it?

A single question, to a single person, cannot by definition be a 'demand' on the 'plural' can it? Cretin?

Here was my question, point out the demand, and point out the plural as you accuse me of;

P.K.

I do not want a fall-out on this, not even an argument, nor am I trolling. But I am genuinely struggling to get where you are coming from.

Could you please have a go at answering the following hypothetical question so that I can try to understand your stance. It is hypothetical (accepted), it puts you on the spot (accepted) It is highly unlikely to happen in real life (accepted). So with all those caveats;

Imagine that there is a lone wolf attacker(s). He has 100 totally innocent victims kneeling down, handcuffed, in front of him. Age decending order, he starts to behead them ( Bit like Beatles did).

You turn up, the only uncuffed individual, you are armed - you alone can take him out. No communication to outside assistance.

What would your actions be? It is down to you entirely as to the fate of the remaining 99 - what would your actions be?

 

Point it out before you call me cretinous. Dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Have you read the thread?

I haven't even spoken to 'We' let alone 'demanded'.

I asked a question (not posted a demand) to P.K. 

That does not invoke either 'We' or 'Demand' does it?

A single question, to a single person, cannot by definition be a 'demand' on the 'plural' can it? Cretin?

 

 

Erm ... sorry but no ... you started specifically with P.K. but then broadened it out when people started pointing out it was ridiculously simplistic:

10 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

P.K.

I do not want a fall-out on this, not even an argument, nor am I trolling. But I am genuinely struggling to get where you are coming from.

Could you please have a go at answering the following hypothetical question so that I can try to understand your stance. It is hypothetical (accepted), it puts you on the spot (accepted) It is highly unlikely to happen in real life (accepted). So with all those caveats;

Imagine that there is a lone wolf attacker(s). He has 100 totally innocent victims kneeling down, handcuffed, in front of him. Age decending order, he starts to behead them ( Bit like Beatles did).

You turn up, the only uncuffed individual, you are armed - you alone can take him out. No communication to outside assistance.

What would your actions be? It is down to you entirely as to the fate of the remaining 99 - what would your actions be?

 

9 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

It's not a tactical question Quilp, it's a moral one (and a very difficult moral one for some, I do not criticise them for that). But Barnier's clock eez ticking......

 

9 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I agree, but let's see what others have to say............

 

9 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

To me, it's not a difficult question.. but let's say one wolf, one dead hostage so far, you're the  only person on the scene able to help. He's about to take a swing at the neck of No2 - He has a sword, you have a gun, what do you do?

All you are asking is whether it is morally acceptable to used deadly force in legitimate defence of others from deadly violence - sorry this isn't a complex moral debate.  The answer is yes.

And whether the person being asked the question had the courage to actually do that themselves. Most people are realistic and say they aren't sure.  

Not sure why you are so fixated on it, and surprised that people aren't willing to bite.

Oh - and this hulk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Erm ... sorry but no ... you started specifically with P.K. but then broadened it out when people started pointing out it was ridiculously simplistic:

 

 

 

All you are asking is whether it is morally acceptable to used deadly force in legitimate defence of others from deadly violence - sorry this isn't a complex moral debate.  The answer is yes.

And whether the person being asked the question had the courage to actually do that themselves. Most people are realistic and say they aren't sure.  

Not sure why you are so fixated on it, and surprised that people aren't willing to bite.

Oh - and this hulk?

Forget the waffle, you are an engineer, so did I 'demand' of the 'plural' which you used as an excuse to call me 'cretinous'?

Yes or No?

'Go or No go'

'Positive or negative'

If you are going to call me cretinous, then your facts needs to stack up fella.

Where's the 'demand'? Where's the 'Plural'.

If you can point out the 'demand' and the 'plural' in my post to P.K. then I will have no hesitation in offering an unequivocal apology.......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I am not a hero, but I am 100%, No equivocation, on their side.

This remark is cretinous.  Who are you trying to have a disagreement with?  Who is claiming not to be on "the side" of these two dedicated people cruelly murdered by a sociopathic follower of an islamist death cult.

Why are you trying to pick an argument when there isn't one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

This remark is cretinous.  Who are you trying to have a disagreement with?  Who is claiming not to be on "the side" of these two dedicated people cruelly murdered by a sociopathic follower of an islamist death cult.

Why are you trying to pick an argument when there isn't one?

As an Engineer, presumably Chartered, do you not have a professional obligation to back up your claims?

I'll say again, where did I 'Demand' of the 'Plural' - as you accuse me of but for which, it seems, you have no evidence.

Happy to then move on to further post once you have justified your original claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...