Explosion at concert in Manchester (UK) - Fatalities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

its a good point but there is absolutely no worse way to go than because some loony toon retard thinks hes gonna get laid in heaven for killing u.

---

What does the killer's motivation matter to the victim?

---

well im extremely competitive AKA NOT A BETA PUSSY so i guess u probably wouldnt understand. But if i were killed by some retard who thinks hes gonna get laid and I was made into a ghost, I would blame 5 billion ppl and bother them every day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

well im extremely competitive AKA NOT A BETA PUSSY

---

:fraudalert


My money would be on you being an extremely scrawny beta pussy in real life.

You are overcompensating for something.

I'd parlay that with you not having any long-term relationship success with anyone of the opposite gender.

Resume your trolling dish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

well im extremely competitive AKA NOT A BETA PUSSY

---

:fraudalert


My money would be on you being an extremely scrawny beta pussy in real life.

You are overcompensating for something.

I'd parlay that with you not having any long-term relationship success with anyone of the opposite gender.

Resume your trolling dish.

---

scrawny yes, beta no - WHEN I TALK, U LISTEN


and im not overcompensating for anything, just pointing out the obvious fact that beta males hate trump, its something that needs to be looked at since we're talking about ppl who naturally lack leadership skills but yet think they know best about leading the #1 country in the world. I DONT GET IT

strange you didn't answer:

Quote:

---

I'd parlay that with you not having any long-term relationship success with anyone of the opposite gender.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

strange you didn't answer:

Quote:

---

I'd parlay that with you not having any long-term relationship success with anyone of the opposite gender.

---

---

why is it strange? answering personal questions from ppl u dont know is for beta cucks

I rest my case.



Happy trolling dish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

well im extremely competitive AKA NOT A BETA PUSSY

---

:fraudalert


My money would be on you being an extremely scrawny beta pussy in real life.

You are overcompensating for something.

I'd parlay that with you not having any long-term relationship success with anyone of the opposite gender.

Resume your trolling dish.

---

Actually, when dish useda send shirtless pics to aim crew chat , he had pretty buff arms chest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrigan

I rest my case.



Happy trolling dish

---

allright good u lost, like everybody else stupid enough to challenge someone just after they describe themselves as "extremely competitive"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake_in_the_ass

This is probably hedging by the government. They got no way to stop lone wolves so they might as well raise the threat level just in case something happens. At least they can "I told you so" instead of being called incompetent. If nothing happens, nobody will complain.

In America, you gotta worry about a nigga with a gun. In Europe, you gotta worry about a poor refugee with nothing to lose. I will take my chances with the niggas!

---

This would be the stupidest bet of all time. There's been, roughly, 80 deaths by Islamic terrorists in the U.K. in the past 20 years.

We have over 40 murders a day in the US 365 days a year. 80 a day during the worst years.

Fear of an Islamic terror group ever getting hold of a WMD is a rational concern, but fear of getting killed by refugees with nothing to lose is akin to having watched Jaws and never entering the ocean again. It's purely irrational.

It's horrible if you hit the anti-lotto and happen to lose your life or someone you love, but you're highly unlikely to ever even meet a person who knows someone killed by a refugee Islamic terrorist. Worry about your blood pressure, resting heartbeat, blood sugar, circumference of your waist. That shit will likely kill you.

That's not a defense of these Stone Age barbarians. It's a defense of logic, reason, and simple probability.

---

We know the media over hypes the threat of terror and the odds of being killed in a terror attack are tiny. That's not what we should focus on when discussing immigration, the question is do we want no go zones popping up here like in Sweden, where just being non black or Muslim is enough to get beat up or worse. . Will the addition of what ever race or religious group lead to our kids getting bullied in school just for being non Muslim or non black? This is what's at stake, our kids future, safety and quality of life.

There's no doubt that a large Muslim population will usher in fear and uncertainty and destroy our peace of mind during times like this, do we want that?

Go hang out in these no go zones after dark and see if the odds of being attacked are still tiny. The odds are tiny when we practice avoidance. Maybe it's not fair to blame Muslims for what the Somali's are doing, that may be a black thing. It shouldn't be some huge taboo to tell the truth.

I wonder what Nostradamus thinks. I don't know if he's right and I don't necessarily agree w him but I think he's interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGjoAi7Z-RM

So apparently the UK has raised its thread level to "critical", and they are heavily patrolling the streets.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/europe...-uk/index.html

This is dumb. After all this time, governments still don't understand the patterns of terror attacks.

Terrorists do not fear death. What they do fear is failure. Getting caught or killed before completing their mission is considered a disaster, and is the worst-case scenario for them.

Therefore, terrorists typically take great care to choose targets and plan attacks with a high likelihood of success.

They are unlikely to attack the streets of the UK when it's crawling with cops.

They are unlikely to attack anywhere with high security, especially if it's temporary.

If they did have a second attack planned, it's not going to occur in the UK until everything calms down.

Even if the suicide bomber had an accomplice, and even if they have evidence that this accomplice is also planning to attack, it's much more likely that he's hiding somewhere and will surface when he feels it's easier to attack again without getting shot before completing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoney

Exactly. The argument is always made they are a very small minority. Well a small minority of billions of people is still a shitload of people.

---

Sweden bit is fake news btw. Europe already tried genocide once when we had issues with one particular middle eastern nomadic tribe with weird religious beliefs. Sure 99.9% of them were peaceful, but it was scary when they arrived in large numbers and started multiplying. We first just shoved them in the ghettos and when that didn't work we gave genocide a go. Now i'm not saying there was anything wrong with that particular genocide (it was likely enjoyable to all involved parties), but it didn't really work that well and it was a lot of work with very little payoff.

---

Holocaust jokes now?

I thought you were above that.

Sweden isn't fake news. I have a good friend who lives there, and it's a real problem. There have even been laughable attempts to "teach" the Muslim immigrants there that Western culture doesn't allow raping and groping women at will. I wish I was making this up.

I also know a girl from Sweden who got groped by a Muslim immigrant on the subway. She went to a sexual assault counselor, who was very supportive at first. However, when describing the attacker, the girl said, "He was Arab and was probably one of the Muslim immigrants", the counselor (also a woman) suddenly got very snappy, and lectured how "you don't say things like that" and to "never describe the race of the person attacking you, only the attack itself".

When the girl asked her why she can't simply be honest about the fact that the attacker was Arab and appeared to be an immigrant, she was simply told, "You know we don't do things like that here."

That's the problem with today's left -- whether in the US or abroad. They're so afraid of giving ammunition to the "no Muslim immigrants" side that they are actually attempting to suppress factual discussion of the real problem being faced.

What level does the threat level have to get to before Martial Law is legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

So apparently the UK has raised its thread level to "critical", and they are heavily patrolling the streets.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/europe...-uk/index.html

This is dumb. After all this time, governments still don't understand the patterns of terror attacks.

Terrorists do not fear death. What they do fear is failure. Getting caught or killed before completing their mission is considered a disaster, and is the worst-case scenario for them.

Therefore, terrorists typically take great care to choose targets and plan attacks with a high likelihood of success.

They are unlikely to attack the streets of the UK when it's crawling with cops.

They are unlikely to attack anywhere with high security, especially if it's temporary.

If they did have a second attack planned, it's not going to occur in the UK until everything calms down.

Even if the suicide bomber had an accomplice, and even if they have evidence that this accomplice is also planning to attack, it's much more likely that he's hiding somewhere and will surface when he feels it's easier to attack again without getting shot before completing it.

---

are you suggesting in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack they should lower the threat level and reduce patrols/security of potential future targets? they should do nothing and just carry on like the situation is normal?

are you just being captain obvious here or do you think there is a more appropriate response to an attack like this?

just to recap:

-a deadly terrorist attack occurred outside a pop concert targeting and killing young children
-govt raises the threat level from where it was prior to the attack
-police patrols are ordered to be increased

what bizarro world am i living in where this response is "dumb?"

i guess it would be more appropriate to lower the threat level and give the police some time off since there is clearly no risk of further attacks according to your perfect hindsight regarding past events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

So apparently the UK has raised its thread level to "critical", and they are heavily patrolling the streets.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/europe...-uk/index.html

This is dumb. After all this time, governments still don't understand the patterns of terror attacks.

Terrorists do not fear death. What they do fear is failure. Getting caught or killed before completing their mission is considered a disaster, and is the worst-case scenario for them.

Therefore, terrorists typically take great care to choose targets and plan attacks with a high likelihood of success.

They are unlikely to attack the streets of the UK when it's crawling with cops.

They are unlikely to attack anywhere with high security, especially if it's temporary.

If they did have a second attack planned, it's not going to occur in the UK until everything calms down.

Even if the suicide bomber had an accomplice, and even if they have evidence that this accomplice is also planning to attack, it's much more likely that he's hiding somewhere and will surface when he feels it's easier to attack again without getting shot before completing it.

---

are you suggesting in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack they should lower the threat level and reduce patrols/security of potential future targets? they should do nothing and just carry on like the situation is normal?

are you just being captain obvious here or do you think there is a more appropriate response to an attack like this?

just to recap:

-a deadly terrorist attack occurred outside a pop concert targeting and killing young children
-govt raises the threat level from where it was prior to the attack
-police patrols are ordered to be increased

what bizarro world am i living in where this response is "dumb?"

i guess it would be more appropriate to lower the threat level and give the police some time off since there is clearly no risk of further attacks according to your perfect hindsight regarding past events?

---

.

This seems like the bing before the bang to me to.

Druff coming in with the much anticipated customer service special prelude, "Inside the mind of a terrorist".

Literally no evidence anyone has died

How is an Ariane Grande concert with 1000s of people swarming about not gonna produce mobile video footage of at least 1 of these dead people

Classic story of a 'homeless' guy who pulled nails out of children's faces:

https://mobile.twitter.com/itvnews/s...01780193898498

Popcorn.gif

:facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

So apparently the UK has raised its thread level to "critical", and they are heavily patrolling the streets.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/europe...-uk/index.html

This is dumb. After all this time, governments still don't understand the patterns of terror attacks.

Terrorists do not fear death. What they do fear is failure. Getting caught or killed before completing their mission is considered a disaster, and is the worst-case scenario for them.

Therefore, terrorists typically take great care to choose targets and plan attacks with a high likelihood of success.

They are unlikely to attack the streets of the UK when it's crawling with cops.

They are unlikely to attack anywhere with high security, especially if it's temporary.

If they did have a second attack planned, it's not going to occur in the UK until everything calms down.

Even if the suicide bomber had an accomplice, and even if they have evidence that this accomplice is also planning to attack, it's much more likely that he's hiding somewhere and will surface when he feels it's easier to attack again without getting shot before completing it.

---

are you suggesting in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack they should lower the threat level and reduce patrols/security of potential future targets? they should do nothing and just carry on like the situation is normal?

are you just being captain obvious here or do you think there is a more appropriate response to an attack like this?

just to recap:

-a deadly terrorist attack occurred outside a pop concert targeting and killing young children
-govt raises the threat level from where it was prior to the attack
-police patrols are ordered to be increased

what bizarro world am i living in where this response is "dumb?"

i guess it would be more appropriate to lower the threat level and give the police some time off since there is clearly no risk of further attacks according to your perfect hindsight regarding past events?

---

Mate, didn't you know american pro poker players are part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Druff is super knowledgable about all of this kind of stuff and knows more about it than the HM Government and the Home Office combined.