Evil8Beezle:
They are both from the same wiki page!
I think you’ll find that the indiscriminate area bombing offensive referred to by Rjan didn’t actually start until the Lancaster was put into service in sufficient numbers to carry it out. 
Check the news!
Germany axe attack: Assault on train in Wuerzburg
A teenage Afghan refugee armed with an axe and knife injured four people on a train in southern Germany before being shot dead by police, officials say.
Three people were seriously hurt and one suffered minor injuries in the attack in Wuerzburg, police said.
Initial reports said up to 20 people had been injured but it was later revealed that at least 14 had been treated for shock.
The motive for the attack is not yet clear.
Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said the attacker was a 17-year-old Afghan refugee who had been living in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt.
He told public broadcaster ARD that the teenager appeared to have travelled to Germany as an unaccompanied minor.
Rjan:
To do nothing about foreign policy would gamble with the safety of people in other parts of the world in the first place, and gamble with the safety of British people as retaliation against that foreign policy becomes stronger.
The leaders of the communities only will action, truly promote and send a message of “throw down your guns” and guide their followers to a course of peace when foreign policy is changed? And only a part of foreign policy affecting their own overseas ethnic and religious loyalties? Until such time, the lives of millions on home soil will be not be awarded the full consideration of such leaders? If this is true then this loyalty and wilful bargaining of human safety places the UK islamic community effectively at war with the people of the United kingdom
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Syria,Iran,Saudi and Iraq all supposedly concentrating on peacetime activeties.
As opposed to arming themselves to the teeth with Russian or Western hardware and causing murder and mayhem in the region just as their ‘book’ teaches them.
How many people do you think were actually conventional soldiers in those nations armies? I’ll bet it was far fewer than those engaged in routine peacetime activities.
The Arab Israeli wars or the Iran Iraq war or GW1 didn’t exactly involve just a few people.While it’s more the hardware which I’m referring to.IE why would us and the Russians want to arm a bunch of unstable nutters to the teeth.Or for that matter why would you not want to support the idea of doing whatever it takes to disarm them.
Evil8Beezle:
Carryfast:
So yes Rjan’s wiki quote is closer to the truth.They are both from the same wiki page!
The accepted history, not least because of Bomber Harris’s openness about the matter, is that we eventually targetted the civilian population specifically. It made sense in its own terms to do so.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
You’re just going to have to accept that our foreign policy does and will always have an effect on our safety - there isn’t a world in which we can do what we want to people abroad, without there being consequences for Britain in return (including consequences that foreign people are in a position to impose). If our foreign policy is good, those returns should be good, but if it is bad then the returns will be bad.So why would we want to increase the risk of such retaliation by going on with an immigration policy which as you’ve admitted yourself brings our enemies among us.
I didn’t realise we were discussing immigration policy. Or do you mean my policy of not starting civil war with the Brits you want to “send back”?
Freight Dog:
Rjan:
To do nothing about foreign policy would gamble with the safety of people in other parts of the world in the first place, and gamble with the safety of British people as retaliation against that foreign policy becomes stronger.The leaders of the communities only will action, truly promote and send a message of “throw down your guns” and guide their followers to a course of peace when foreign policy is changed? And only a part of foreign policy affecting their own overseas ethnic and religious loyalties? Until such time, the lives of millions on home soil will be not be awarded the full consideration of such leaders? If this is true then this loyalty and wilful bargaining of human safety places the UK islamic community effectively at war with the people of the United kingdom
We’d obviously also need to question the exact motives of Corbyn’s and Merkel’s etc supporters in that.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
So why would we want to increase the risk of such retaliation by going on with an immigration policy which as you’ve admitted yourself brings our enemies among us.I didn’t realise we were discussing immigration policy. Or do you mean my policy of not starting civil war with the Brits you want to “send back”?
If we’re in the situation of having to send them back for reasons of the threat posed by them to national security and then they want to make a fight of that process that isn’t civil war.That’s an issue of foreign enemy resistance to national security agency ( armed forces for example ) actions in removing it.Oh wait yes we’d obviously have to change the definition of citizenship to one of jus Sanguinis where national security requires it.
Which would obviously also include immigrants not actually born here.Like the one in this case.
Now if you’re saying actions by Brit citizens,who satisfy the definition of jus Sanguinis ( let’s say like possibly Momentum type Corbyn supporters for example ) in support of that enemy faction,that’s still not civil war.That’s just a bunch of zb wit Socialist criminals who’d face the law as it stands at home. 
Freight Dog:
Rjan:
To do nothing about foreign policy would gamble with the safety of people in other parts of the world in the first place, and gamble with the safety of British people as retaliation against that foreign policy becomes stronger.The leaders of the communities only will action, truly promote and send a message of “throw down your guns” and guide their followers to a course of peace when foreign policy is changed? And only a part of foreign policy affecting their own overseas ethnic and religious loyalties? Until such time, the lives of millions on home soil will be not be awarded the full consideration of such leaders? If this is true then this loyalty and wilful bargaining of human safety places the UK islamic community effectively at war with the people of the United kingdom
It depends whether, having started one war abroad, you now want to start another on British soil by attacking a section of the British population you define as Islamic and turning a divided loyalty into a decisive lack of loyalty to the rest of Britain.
I suspect many right-wingers would want to do this, because they frequently look for ways to pick fights even where none need exist, and confirms that there is a mentality in play of taking the initiative to attack but then refusing to accept responsibility for its consequences (including the fact that victims of the attack, even if not previously hostile, may choose to retaliate).
The same right-wingers will also refuse to accept responsibility for the fact that when people have a subtle or double-sided view on a matter, faced with an aggressive demand from one side that they take a more black and white view and choose one side only, may frequently cause them to pick the side that does not lodge an aggressive demand for loyalty, for no other reason than that they dislike black and white thinking and an unjustifiably aggressive demand for loyalty (and perhaps a schoolyard intuition that such aggressive people rarely make durable friends, cease to make ever more extreme demands, or cease to find differences worth fighting over).
The Germans are not messing about in Bavaria… Crazed Islamic Axeman? - Blow him away whilst he tries to run away…
Trouble is - what happens in THIS country where the nearest tooled-up authority is miles away at any time? 
Rjan:
Freight Dog:
Rjan:
To do nothing about foreign policy would gamble with the safety of people in other parts of the world in the first place, and gamble with the safety of British people as retaliation against that foreign policy becomes stronger.The leaders of the communities only will action, truly promote and send a message of “throw down your guns” and guide their followers to a course of peace when foreign policy is changed? And only a part of foreign policy affecting their own overseas ethnic and religious loyalties? Until such time, the lives of millions on home soil will be not be awarded the full consideration of such leaders? If this is true then this loyalty and wilful bargaining of human safety places the UK islamic community effectively at war with the people of the United kingdom
It depends whether, having started one war abroad, you now want to start another on British soil by attacking a section of the British population you define as Islamic and turning a divided loyalty into a decisive lack of loyalty to the rest of Britain.
I suspect many right-wingers would want to do this
What’s the difference between ‘divided’ loyalty in this case v ‘decisive lack of’ loyalty.IE ‘divided’ being a fact obviously also by definition means a decisive lack.
If you want to make the stereotype of ‘right wing’ you’ll obviously first need to define ‘left’.As I said I’m guessing that you’re applying the obsolete Soviet Socialist allied to the Arab/Islamic cause v Western interests definition in that case.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
So why would we want to increase the risk of such retaliation by going on with an immigration policy which as you’ve admitted yourself brings our enemies among us.I didn’t realise we were discussing immigration policy. Or do you mean my policy of not starting civil war with the Brits you want to “send back”?
If we’re in the situation of having to send them back for reasons of the threat posed by them to national security and then they want to make a fight of that process that isn’t civil war.
It is civil war if you’re sending people “back” to a place they never came from for purely political reasons and without their consent. If the nation as a whole were really threatened, and not just a subsection of it, there would be consent for the measures necessary for its defence and it would not involve the outplacement of a part of the population. In fact this “political outplacement” is probably a defining feature of civil war.
Winseer:
The Germans are not messing about in Bavaria… Crazed Islamic Axeman? - Blow him away whilst he tries to run away…
Blimey must have missed being censored down to pished off lorry driver on the commute home after a day of multi drop in Munich. 
I thought the Islamists were all brave to the point of suicide so couldn’t possibly have been running away.Must have been hit by a ricochet.
Rjan:
It is civil war if you’re sending people “back” to a place they never came from for purely political reasons and without their consent. If the nation as a whole were really threatened, and not just a subsection of it, there would be consent for the measures necessary for its defence and it would not involve the outplacement of a part of the population. In fact this “political outplacement” is probably a defining feature of civil war.
It’s not political.The threat of retaliatory action by a disloyal foreign ethnic immigrant population,based on split loyalties,is a matter of national security.
While repatriation on those grounds is no more a case of civil war than any other type of repatriation.Such as expiry of a work permit or in this case change in citizenship status for reasons of national security.While why do you think it’s so important that anyone with such views should stay here and why do you not think it’s in everyone’s interests to send such a person home to where their stated loyalties are on the basis of jus Sanguinis.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
It depends whether, having started one war abroad, you now want to start another on British soil by attacking a section of the British population you define as Islamic and turning a divided loyalty into a decisive lack of loyalty to the rest of Britain.I suspect many right-wingers would want to do this
What’s the difference between ‘divided’ loyalty in this case v ‘decisive lack of’ loyalty.IE ‘divided’ being a fact obviously also by definition means a decisive lack.
No, because that fails to differentiate divided loyalty from pure neutrality. If you have two children, you may be loyal to both when they face outside opponents, but if they come into conflict with each other you may well be more concerned that they reconcile with each other, or you may be unsure which (if either) has a legitimate grievance or how a grievance can be actually addressed.
I would think most Muslims, for example, would think that the Middle East needs a good dose of British liberal democracy and economic development, but not at the expense of causing atrocities and not without having a great deal of sympathy for those who have suffered atrocity.
Anyhow, it is obvious that we do not want to cause a divided loyalty to collapse into a decisive loyalty to our opponents.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
What’s the difference between ‘divided’ loyalty in this case v ‘decisive lack of’ loyalty.IE ‘divided’ being a fact obviously also by definition means a decisive lack.No, because that fails to differentiate divided loyalty from pure neutrality. If you have two children, you may be loyal to both when they face outside opponents, but if they come into conflict with each other you may well be more concerned that they reconcile with each other, or you may be unsure which (if either) has a legitimate grievance or how a grievance can be actually addressed.
I would think most Muslims, for example, would think that the Middle East needs a good dose of British liberal democracy and economic development, but not at the expense of causing atrocities and not without having a great deal of sympathy for those who have suffered atrocity.
Anyhow, it is obvious that we do not want to cause a divided loyalty to collapse into a decisive loyalty to our opponents.
In case you haven’t noticed we’re already in the situation whereby we know the motivation and intentions of the countries in question.IE they aren’t allies,more like potential enemies and follow a violent aggressive doctrine that is totally incompatible with ours.Realistically who gives a zb whether anyone is just partly loyal to that or wholly if/when we need to take action against those countries.As for the Middle East most of the place is floating on a sea of oil which brings in a fortune in income so they ain’t poor.
Their problem is too many weapons combined with that violent aggressive doctrine contained in their cult not religion which is a recipe for what we see time and time again in the region.In which case the odds are sooner or later there will inevitably have to be a reckoning between us allied to Israel that disarms these nutters.In addition to the attempts at pacification which we’ve already had to carry out to varying levels of success.In which case there’s no place for any disloyalty among the immigrant population here in that regard.If they can’t handle that then as I’ve said they’ll have to go home to where their loyalties are.
If they are as keen on civilising and cleaning up their act as you say they are then they’ll obviously happily give up their weapons and stop chopping people up and hanging them from cranes etc etc and consign Sharia and all the other backward zb to history where it belongs.In addition to recognising the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish Nation.All that with no persuasion from us and the clear stated support of the immigrant Islamic community.
Rjan:
The only iron law we know is that high temperatures applied to an entire group, will eventually cause boiling and some individuals will change into steam (perhaps as much because of random stressful events in their own lives which cannot be predicted but which finally launch them into a terror strike).
Just to add to what I previously said (and maybe get this thread back on its legs!), they’re now reporting that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, far from being any sort of devout Islamist, was a bisexual, ■■■-crazed, pork-eating, drinker and drug user, and that he’d had some sort of falling out with his estranged wife earlier on the day of the attack! Meanwhile, they have not confirmed any actual terror links. Interesting to see how this turns out.
it might be interesting for you,but I lost the will to live about 8 mind numbing pages ago…
dieseldog999:
it might be interesting for you,but I lost the will to live about 8 mind numbing pages ago…
Are you saying you’ve been radicalised online and are now suicidal? I think I’d better do my community duty and let the police know.
Rjan:
Just to add to what I previously said (and maybe get this thread back on its legs!), they’re now reporting that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, far from being any sort of devout Islamist, was a bisexual, ■■■-crazed, pork-eating, drinker and drug user, and that he’d had some sort of falling out with his estranged wife earlier on the day of the attack! Meanwhile, they have not confirmed any actual terror links. Interesting to see how this turns out.
Bearing in mind that Hollande is staring into the Abyss of a large scale swing to the FN he’ll obviously instruct the media to say anything which he thinks will take the heat off him.A bit like the latest North African attack on a mother and her daughters in the Alps region.Media reports that witnesses said he was upset by their clothing standards.While the local officials say that isn’t the case.Even before it’s gone to trial.
Meanwhile such immigration is being justified on the grounds that we are bringing in valuable additions to our societies that we need.