Such is the state of the world right now...

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Although I don't think you're painting a technically incorrect picture, it is breathtakingly one-sided. Yes, police killing civilians, per police officer, is about 100 times higher in the US than the UK 1900-2014. However, civilians killing police officers is also about 100 times higher 2000-2014. Thus, the accurate description of affairs is not an American populace under the heel of the jackboot of police authority, but instead of a long-standing history of violent and armed conflict between US civilians and the police with casualties on both sides.

I don't think I could agree to the example you give of killing police officers and not being killed in return. In the UK officers might not take the problem very seriously, but the police death toll is nearly 100 times as bad in the US, so here precautions are necessary. That said, as former military I firmly believe most (undeserved) civilian deaths are the result of improper escalation of force training and failure to routinely drill EoF with hands-on mock practice sessions of difficult scenarios.

I didnt say killing police officers, I said attacking them. a lot of people attack police here, virtually none of them actually kill them because they will be dealt with an incapacitated in a non lethal manner and then thrown in a cell.


the situation being described as under the jackboot fits. Long standing conflict, how many people have actually won? How many citizens have taken up violent conflict against the government of america and actually won that fight? Its a situation with escalated violence on both sides, yes, but ultimately despite both sides suffering casualties theres only 1 winner. Look at the people at waco, if you get in a gun fight with the police and win that gunfight they will send more police with bigger guns and helicopters after you, if you get to waco stage the government sends in flame tanks and annihilates you warzone style, youre never winning that fight, you cant ever escalate your retaliation to the point where you win. So its not like a 50/50 fight in the playground, its just a rougher school than another, its you may be able to punch the bully once on the way down but every time you will be held down, beaten and have your head flushed down the toilet. Its not a 50/50 conflict, the result is resistance is oppressed, and the stronger the resistance the stronger the oppression with no limits. If the people at waco had their own tank to fight back with what do you think would happen? government just say well, 50/50, I guess we will let them have that one? Unless your personal weapon stash at home is as vast and manned as a country like chinas entire military structure you cannot even hope to win that conflict. You got a tank? the day that happens a jet is going to blow it up, you got a jet? theyll send 10.

Fascism was quoted, and jackboots are a nod to nazi authority. the nazis were at war, they suffered casualties, the people they were oppressing in the countries they conquered fought back, but it was essentially fruitless for them. Obviously until america, russia and the uk stormed mainland europe from every side and sorted them out, but until you have that sort of weight behind you then regardless of fighting back its oppression, thats the result. If youre in a fight you cant even hope to win youre being bullied.

you cant win in the uk either, the jackboot is here also, but here its being disarmed, maybe hard wrestled a bit, few bumps and bruises, thats the power used to keep you in check. In america the jackboot is people held at gunpoint and possibly executed on the spot like a feral animal. Thats what i meant by further under the jackboot.

"

Disrupted wrote:

^For that, there needs to be better training.
Still easier to say it than to live it. Cops arent psychic.

I dont see the UK as good example though.

its the best example. our police kill hardly anyone and hardly anyone kills them. Our cultures go back 3000+ years and we share 2500+ of those years. For every outrage here theres countless in america, and most of the time the resulting horror is unthinkably bigger. Its also the example given to start with of the uk being under fascist control.

That dude with the knife u posted a vid of is essentially threatening police with a lethal weapon, you can bet hes still alive, that he would have been eventually overwhelmed, cuffed, thrown in a cell and told to chill the fk out. So thats an example of the fascist rule that uk citizens live under?

Heres the vids we see of american police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VROut8eatw

a police officer pointing a gun at 12 year old children, essentially threatening them with death if they do not exactly comply with him. children. This is what real freedom looks like?

the only time we see this sort of thing in the uk is youtube videos from american police and news footage of soldiers taking terrorist insurgents prisoner in some godforsaken 3rd world warzone.





this is way off topic though, my point in the thread was just that when it comes to issues of libs gone mad, political correctness gone insane, peoples mortality being inside out... Its like looking down a microscope and seeing scary monsters. Theyre microbes, were microbes, world keeps turning, the people oblivious to all this stuff get on with their lives and are happier for it, and the world is no more or less worse off for their ignorance.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

How many citizens have taken up violent conflict against the government of america and actually won that fight? Its a situation with escalated violence on both sides, yes, but ultimately despite both sides suffering casualties theres only 1 winner. Look at the people at waco, if you get in a gun fight with the police and win that gunfight they will send more police with bigger guns and helicopters after you, if you get to waco stage the government sends in flame tanks and annihilates you warzone style, youre never winning that fight, you cant ever escalate your retaliation to the point where you win. So its not like a 50/50 fight in the playground, its just a rougher school than another, its you may be able to punch the bully once on the way down but every time you will be held down, beaten and have your head flushed down the toilet. Its not a 50/50 conflict, the result is resistance is oppressed, and the stronger the resistance the stronger the oppression with no limits. If the people at waco had their own tank to fight back with what do you think would happen? government just say well, 50/50, I guess we will let them have that one? Unless your personal weapon stash at home is as vast and manned as a country like chinas entire military structure you cannot even hope to win that conflict. You got a tank? the day that happens a jet is going to blow it up, you got a jet? theyll send 10.

First of all, there’s no anti-personnel flame tanks. This isn’t WH40k.

Second—and I am not advocating this, just correcting a myth—the military’s worst nightmare is a poorly armed insurgency. If you think the 2nd amendment is futile, I’d like to point you toward the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. A smaller, less armed population gave our troops hell for how many years? An actual insurgency, not just some nutty cult, on our soil would be hell^2, and nobody wants that. To answer your initial question, there are examples where the threat of conflict has de-escalated violence and allowed negotiation to occur (Bundy ranch*), but otherwise I’m pretty sure we tend to settle things without violence most of the time. We are, after all, the world’s foremost purveyors of democracy, human rights, and all things decent ;)

*edit: which admittedly I am not well read on, but my understanding of it was that the BLM engaged in some extra-legal activities to confiscate their property, the 3%ers or somebody said “nope,” everybody stood down, and they took it to court where it belonged.

"

faerwin wrote:

You don't understand. It's the same fight.

Woman in the west don't want to be told what they can't wear.
Woman in the middle east don't want to be told what they have to wear.


Both of them want freedom of wearing whatever the fuck they want to wear.

Orwell would have never dreamed of these levels of doublethink. Nice strawman btw, nobody is telling any Western women what they can and can not wear.

"

pannra wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

You don't understand. It's the same fight.

Woman in the west don't want to be told what they can't wear.
Woman in the middle east don't want to be told what they have to wear.


Both of them want freedom of wearing whatever the fuck they want to wear.

Orwell would have never dreamed of these levels of doublethink. Nice strawman btw, nobody is telling any Western women what they can and can not wear.

If you believe there isn't peer pressure, insults or intimidation used against woman that choose to wear an hijab, you are gravely mistaken. It's even worse if they wear a niqab. So tell me, how is that not telling woman what they can't wear?

"

faerwin wrote:

If you believe there isn't peer pressure, insults or intimidation used against woman that choose to wear an hijab, you are gravely mistaken. It's even worse if they wear a niqab. So tell me, how is that not telling woman what they can't wear?

Why don t you fight that hard for the right of women to be barebreast?
Show a chest naked man in there and none would care, show a breast naked woman and it will be called pornography and support removed.

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

If you believe there isn't peer pressure, insults or intimidation used against woman that choose to wear an hijab, you are gravely mistaken. It's even worse if they wear a niqab. So tell me, how is that not telling woman what they can't wear?

Why don t you fight that hard for the right of women to be barebreast?
Show a chest naked man in there and none would care, show a breast naked woman and it will be called pornography and support removed.

Because I don't believe that's appropriate and that there's no double standard since the anatomy of a man and a woman are different for the region of the body.

Isn't it already legal for women (and men) to walk around naked in liberal places like San Francisco?

"

Kamchatka wrote:

Isn't it already legal for women (and men) to walk around naked in liberal places like San Francisco?

I read an article about that a while ago, I think it was new york?

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

...

lol, the lvl of bullshit, avoidance and irony in this post.
Keep calm and carry on, have fun in your islamic state.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

Isn't it already legal for women (and men) to walk around naked in liberal places like San Francisco?

Eh, legal nudism areas I dont have that much of a problem with. now this shit:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html
Sometimes I forget the level of mentally ill, criminal loving (cause usually they ARE the criminals themselves) mentality some people have.

"

faerwin wrote:

Because I don't believe that's appropriate.

- Same reason the burka and veil been created, because showing hairs is not appropriate for them.
- Fight for total freedom or fight for nothing.