213374U

The power-hungry demagogue in me would immediately choose 1, but I know these boards are chock full of weary stiffnecks...

So basically they are just showing that no police force can be everywhere at all times. They are apparently coordinating the attacks in a similar fashion as the Arab revolts did last spring, only this time is more Blackberry chat and less FB. I'm not sure if this is good or bad brand publicity. "Blackberry, the tool of the 21st century professional hooligan" It's kinda weird the complete ineffectiveness the police have demonstrated so far because Brits have a lot of experience fighting urban guerrillas and rioters in Northern Ireland. I wonder once police and/or military response gears up to actually put the riots down, will Sarko move to initiate humanitarian airstrikes on the evil repressors too? Will he ask for RAF support?

So, you can't gas them, you can't use rubber bullets against them, you can't douse them with water cannons, and absolutely no tasering them. Mobs leaving people homeless and sending officers to the hospital is perfectly fine, but a few riot cops appear on TV roughing up some bottom feeder and placing him in restraints, and the progressive-PC crowd will waste no time crying bloody murder, racism, police brutality, etc. Ah, things are looking up.

Is it wrong that I'm more interested in threads like this than those dealing with new games? I've all but given up gaming, but if the bug bites me, it's going to be either BG2 or DX. OT Thanks to Walsingham's creative thinking it's possible to outmaneuver some annoying mythology character and keep Drizzt's trash, but frankly I don't see the point. When the devs decide to be so in-your-face with the cheats, playing by the rules is absurd. Much more satisfying to turn into a flayer and devour his brain. Or would be, if the fight didn't go like *switch to cutscene mode, wizard walks up to you, wizard casts cutscene-Imprisonment while you stare at the pretty colors*. I think there was a mod out there somewhere that modified the encounter so the scripted shenanigans became an actual fight.

Maybe you should consider a career in marketing. I'm only half-joking - there's a lot of people like Krez.

And don't forget the antidepressants. PTSD is a bitch.

Hahaha. Irony.

Am I the only one who thinks it's Stanley Kubrick-absurd to suggest responding to gunfire with pinpoint rock throwing? Even without getting into a debate about effective ranges and stopping power... flying bricks? Seriously? And the only ones who would consider weight lifting to be an activity even remotely related to combat are perhaps some of those who dream of being bodybuilders. "This new program I'm on is DEATH... for the shoulders", "I'd KILL for 20″ arms", "Check out these GUNZ", etc. facepalm.gif This is why I love coming here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...among-dead.html Facts, once again, trump fantasies. An unarmed policeman (unsurprisingly) failed to stop the gunman and got killed in the process. There's of course the fact that most victims were teenagers who would have a hard time subduing a healthy strong adult. But hey, what do I know. You can take out n00bs with knife headshots in Counterstrike provided that you are bold enough, so it obviously must be doable IRL. Even if you, uh, don't really have a knife. Oh, and oby, the attack you are referring to was a knife attack. The attackers themselves were rushed by a mob armed with sharp and blunt objects themselves, so they were both outgunned and outnumbered. But yeah, the West is weak and decadent, because political leaders here don't wrestle polar bears before breakfast. So, fantasize on, Obsidian forums!

Either you or Ros don't understand what tolerance means, as a political and moral concept. However, given your mutual general posting tones, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are misrepresenting his position to build a manichaean fallacy regarding "tolerance" in the West. Tolerance isn't about smiling politely at public stonings or nodding sagely at genital mutilation because they are performed by people from "other cultures", and obviously, rejecting that is not intolerance. Tolerance cannot be understood separately from other concepts like moral minimums and therefore, suggesting acceptance of actions, conducts or beliefs that contradict such minimums -and to a much lesser degree, the laws embodied by them- doesn't fall within the realm of tolerance. Tolerance is the political path to peaceful coexistence of different cultures in a society. It has worked in the past -the Muslim state of Al-Andalus is a particularly relevant example- and is strictly different from either cultural assimilation or the kind of parochial nationalism you seem to favor. Pending a conclusive psychological evaluation, I wouldn't put much stock on whatever he has to say. Considering his methods, his choice of targets and his personal history and lifestyle, I'm more inclined to believe that he is, in fact, just another misfit whose only remarkable trait is the single-mindedness that allowed him to plan and carry out the attacks. So, yeah, just another rampage killer with delusions of grandeur. No, there was also an unarmed plainclothes cop among the victims, from what I read. I guess he was "inept" too? Have you ever tried to disarm someone who was wielding, say, a knife? I'd like to see you not soil your pants in a similar situation, tough guy.

Unfulfilled affective and belongingness (believe it or not that's actually a word) needs. Gorth's post a few pages back hit the nail on the head. The guy was an immature, cowardly, lonely man that chose to turn inwards rather than clench his teeth and try harder or seek help. I'd wager that, with progressively less human contact as he devoted more and more time to his "projects", his social skills deteriorated even further as his ego and butthurt grew. A kind of psychological positive(lol) feedback, perhaps. Humans are the most social primates in the world and loneliness, self-imposed or otherwise, does very nasty things to our psyche. The pseudo-political propaganda is just a fantasy he made up -for himself, rather than anyone else- so he could avoid looking in the mirror and seeing the sore loser he is. I'm not going to hand the pathetic swine the victory that would come from wasting time reading through his poorly written 1,500-page rant, but from the excerpts Boo so kindly posted, the only element greater in magnitude than his self-centeredness is his hurt ego. Nope, not even his penchant for cheap rhetoric and plagiarism. And that's enough armchair psychology for today. More to come later, if I feel like it.

I can't seem to open HK's 2nd link. Southern hemisphere only? Shame because that Guardian piece was pretty cool. Is it? Carrying a gun and using it effectively to protect yourself in a situation like that aren't even close. As soon as the **** hits the fan, you'll probably get the shakes bad, missing all your shots -if you were lucky and your gun didn't jam straight away- and/or hit something or someone(!) else. That's assuming you weren't paralyzed by terror or just succumbed to the overwhelming impulse to GTFO. People in the police and military train for that sort of stuff for years and still fail to consistently keep a cool head under fire. Regular joes do even worse, packing or not, because we lack practice handling the violent hormonal discharge. Gun-toting pedestrians may have a mild deterrent effect, and hearing shots other than his own might have made the guy pause, but all things considered, I'd rather have just one out of control gunman.

Nice. You must have been one hell of a prosecutor.

You really are out of ideas, aren't you? Or was your little sister writing your replies for you and she got sleepy-eyed and left you in charge? Gonna take a break now. Be a good retardo and go to bed already. And don't touch your teddy in the special place, despite what you may have heard, that's not what friends do.

Yeah, I'd call you dear but you'd get ideas... sonny.

That doesn't even make sense, kid. Clearly it's way past your bedtime and it's showing. (ooh, I left myself wide open for a "your mum" comeback! that and a few more of your "no U" retorts should do it!)

What can I say, I have a soft spot for educating people who lack a chromosome.

So the point is to post random pics? Coulda fooled me. I'll see if I can find some suitably homoerotic Van Damme pics to throw in.

Hmm, no. The topic at hand was the killing of BL. You know, that's what titles are for, if you lose track. Some people were commenting on other things like the hypocrisy of celebrating, etc. You posted a badly-written, generic, undirected flamebait after Hilde, GDM and me were discussing a different aspect of the topic. The problem is that you'd have had to quote Nepenthe directly to make it clear who you were talking to, and then your 4chan-quality bait would actually become a direct personal attack on him. But on top of being stupid you have yet to grow some balls. If you can't man up over the ****ing Internet, you must really be a frightened little bitch IRL. Did you give your lunch money to the school bully before or after you blew him? Don't get out much, I take it? That would explain why you have so much trouble following conversations.

You mean the point isn't to glorify extra-judicial killings? Okay, so, what is it then?

Right, my bad. Because I made the -wrong- assumption that what you were saying wasn't just random inane babble that was aimed at nobody in particular and of no relevance or interest to the topic. Classic internet. I won't make the same mistake again!

Right. Because BL is the first and only target of assassination in this "war". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan So then his trial should have been lightning fast, right? Your point is that a known terrorist is a valid target for assassination. But... there are no valid targets for assassination because murder is illegal. See, one of the most often used rationales to justify "targeted killings" is self-defense (!).

In fact, and unlike you, I read the whole thread, you stunted asswipe. See, it helps when you are trying to look cool and blend in with the crowd, to at least make clear who is the target of the random insulting remarks you are making. That may require that you first gain a modicum of reading comprehension so you get a superficial understanding of what people are actually saying, but hey, one step at a time, you oligophrenic inbred runt. Best wishes, dip****.

Precedent doesn't really mean anything in this context. So the bad guys outmaneuvered the US. And the solution to the emerging problem of asymmetric conflict is... to apply conventional force, to fight the last war. Is this the "new form of fighting" you're referring to? Because, clearly, it's not working. Compare with Petraeus' methods in Iraq. Yeah... that's about as "universal" as it gets, as far as defining terrorism goes. Reference.com is not, AFAIK, a source of law in any case. Then I guess you simply post random **** without really having any clue what the discussion is about or even what your point is: "Nice try", indeed.

Hello Krookie. I want to introduce you to an acquaintance of mine. She's called the Fifth Amendment to the ****ing United States Constitution. I'm sure you'll be fast friends!