Forum menu
I am wonderign how many posters need to answer a question for JHJ to consider it has been answered
More importantly is is
1. More than for TJ
2. Less than for TJ
Lifer - MemberI don't think it was a trigger as much as an easily identifiable and soft target.
Actually, I think you're right there
To be fair, a 7.62 round does normally make a big hole and a LOT of mess. An AK has a decent recoil too (before the wargasm/walt stuff comes on I have fired lots of AKs, this isn't a guess).
Some of these answers are more satisfactory; but the whole instant death=stopped heart/lack of pumping blood thing is a little bit silly
I'm still not wholly convinced either way...
All this hand wringing over a malicious fairy tale is bizarre.
If you banned Islam in the west its followers could find their way out of the middle ages all by thelselves in some desert wasteland.
jivehoneyjive - MemberAnyone come up with a satisfactory explanation for the lack of blood yet?
Compare:
As grim and sad as it is to debate something like this with you as you'll always twist things to suit some conspiracy theory I want to respond. First off since you linked the Zapruder film, you'll agree the first bullet hits Kennedy in the throat yes? He can clearly be seen grabbing his throat in the footage. Why no blood?
As others have said real life and Hollywood aren't the same thing. Impossible to tell from the footage where the bullet enters and exits the poor guy. Could have gone through his cheek or his jaw. The exit wound might be facing the ground. Who knows.
That is easy it is because they used different shooters from different angles using different weapons 😉
That's a very fair point; however, given the comparative camera angles and backgrounds, blood would be less evident.
What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident would highlight any spray of blood from an exit wound, yet apparently, there is none.
Appreciate it may seem macabre and disrespectful to analyze in this detail, but by the same merit, if it was a cynical act of political manipulation, surely we'd all want to know the truth...
Northwind .. I think I answered you already in the post above yours ..
I don't think its a simple matter, but I don't think you should discount _What people actually say their own motivations are_
Its not just the words.
They didn't attack a military outpost.
They didn't attack a state building.
They attacked a satirical newspaper who drew some cartoons.
Equally when Hitoshi Igarashi (Salman Rushdies japanese translator) was killed, and when Theo van Gogh was killed, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali threatened, was that all about western politics as well?
No, it was about apostasy and blasphemy and "offence".
A few things come to mind:
a) Many people seem to have a narrative about western politics which they try to impose on a series of events that may be more about religious dogma than they care to admit.
b) A lot of liberals could benefit from reading some things by Maajid Nawaz, Taslima Nasrin and maybe the ex-muslims forum about extremism, apostacy and blasphemy.
Its like CSI on here today 😆
There is no point answering Jive he wont be convinced by facts and reason
What's the best caliber for shooting terrorists then? 😯
What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident
It was filmed in the same studio where [i]they[/i] filmed the moon landings.
FFS....
None of my comments were aimed at you, though one mentioned your response to someone when you called them a nob and i said you were to polite.
Ah. I completely misunderstood. My bad.
Apologies.
Junkyard
There is no point answering Jive he wont be convinced by facts and reason
I'm painfully aware of that.
jivehoneyjive - MemberThat's a very fair point; however, given the comparative camera angles and backgrounds, blood would be less evident.
What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident would highlight any spray of blood from an exit wound, yet apparently, there is none.
You're using the same argument to disprove my point, to make your point. Which I guessed you would do. I'll indulge you one more time though. First off if we ignore actual anatomy and use Hollywood logic a bullet hitting the throat would result in massive instant blood loss. Also, the bullet hits him from the rear, and exits his throat at the front. He is in profile, it's the perfect angle to see blood if there was any. You're not denying Kennedy got shot in the throat, and yet it's impossible to see blood from that wound in that footage. The footage you used to make your point. End of.
Reports suggest that several hostages, including women and children, may have been taken in a Jewish shop in eastern Paris.
The attacker of the kosher shop in Paris was seen carrying two machine guns, reports in the French media say.
Unfortunately looks like its kicking off again...
Anyone watching the coverage?
They keep showing some footage of some French armed police falling over on a slippery grassy slope. Not exactly inspiring confidence
Ah. I completely misunderstood. My bad.Apologies.
No probs
jivehoneyjive, I hope I never get to a place in my life where my first thought on seeing pictures of a wounded man getting shot in the head while lying in the street, is start a discussion on a cycling forum about how convincing the footage is.
You utter utter bellend.
Some of these answers are more satisfactory; but the whole instant death=stopped heart/lack of pumping blood thing is a little bit sillyI'm still not wholly convinced either way...
Would it be wrong to use JiveTalkingBull as a human target to prove the point. It's not testing on animals just a muppet with a seriously deluded view of reality.
Interesting comments elsewhere on web discussing Donald Trump's assertion that this would not have played out the same in a country where the public were allowed to arm themselves.
I'm not sure it would have played out better, but it certainly would be different.
If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. Jive, you [s]are starting to[/s] look like a loony.
eat the pudding most Muslims despise Majid Nawaz and look at him as damaged goods. Initially he was with the Hizbutahrir the white collar reps of al Muhahjiroon and after a period in foreign jails he's back whiter than white.
The problem with muslim communities in the UK is that they are in effect leaderless. Local mosques have imams and committees who just want to bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Elected representatives one they've been elected become tyrants and reap benefits for themselves. Given all this the think tanks like Majid Nawazs are well out of touch with your average Muslim on the street.
digga - MemberInteresting comments elsewhere on web discussing Donald Trump's assertion that this would not have played out the same in a country where the public were allowed to arm themselves.
I'm not sure it would have played out better, but it certainly would be different.
When I heard about this I did think to myself, if I was a professional cartoonist I don't think I'd be poking fun at people who were likely to come and kill me (in the way they did) unless I could arm myself appropriately. And even then I'm not sure I would.
eat_the_pudding - MemberI don't think its a simple matter, but I don't think you should discount _What people actually say their own motivations are_
I'm not doing that at all- I'm saying you read too much into what was, basically, a battlecry. They didn't say "The prophet has been avenged and that is the sum total of what motivated this". Now I don't know what goes through the head of a religious nutter but I don't think delivering a powerpoint presentation of everything that has led to them flipping out is really on the agenda.
which tend to have quite a lot of security - I know there were police at charlie hebdo, still a softer target than the above.They didn't attack a military outpost.
They didn't attack a state building.
Not saying your main point is wrong, just remarking.
Rumour circulating that police lady killed yesterday was standing guard outside a Jewish school. Press did not cover that aspect describing the shooting as a result of a traffic accident. News says it's the same gunman who has now taken hostages in the Jewish supermarket
don't think this is unique to MuslimsElected representatives one they've been elected become tyrants and reap benefits for themselves.
I'm not doing that at all- I'm saying you read too much into what was, basically, a battlecry. They didn't say "The prophet has been avenged and that is the sum total of what motivated this". Now I don't know what goes through the head of a religious nutter but I don't think delivering a powerpoint presentation of everything that has led to them flipping out is really on the agenda.
True enough @Northwind, these people are full of hatred and a twisted desire for notoriety. Its always been my view they are not pursuing any political agenda.
[img] 
[/img]
I think Trump's point was that if ordinary people were allowed to be armed, the terrorist a.) might have thought twice about this type of attack and b.) might not have killed so many already and might be dead or seriously injured themselves, rather than at large and killing further.jimjam - Member
When I heard about this I did think to myself, if I was a professional cartoonist I don't think I'd be poking fun at people who were likely to come and kill me (in the way they did) unless I could arm myself appropriately. And even then I'm not sure I would.
He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.
lalazar,
I realise that Majid Nawaz is not seen by many muslims as a particularly sympathetic figure.
However in the context of this discussion I think he has a lot to offer, and I think he has the potential to educate a lot of non muslims about how criticise the ideas of religion without including the people.
Hopefully someone will come forward who has the clout to encourage muslims to look at their own religion critically despite ingrained taboos .
(Majid Nawaz he did manage to turn the head of the EDL though 🙂
its taken me a few days (in between other jobs) to read almost all of the posts on this thread.
disappointed to see that there seems to be quite a few on here who have a very islamophobic attitude and clearly are quite brazen about this...i'm not going to name them though...they know who they are
someone at one point asked for this thread to be closed...but i'm glad the mods have kept it open as it encourages debate and it allows the likes of jambalaya et al to spout their usual bollocks...
digga - MemberHe makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.
Sure but when guns are legal, it's much easier to go on a killing spree in the first place. So maybe if some of the staff had been armed they could have changed this (and it's not that likely it would have been worse- not always the case). But what if somewhere else is a furious person who'd love to go on a killing spree, if he only had a gun? Access to legal firearms also removes one of the ways you can thwart this sort of attack before it happens- catching someone with a gun or sourcing a gun.
It's grim but would the Useless Glasgow Aiport Bombers have still used a useless bomb, if they could have easily got their hands on guns?
Complicated maths basically but certainly nobody can make a factually rooted argument that we'd be safer or less safe from this sort of attack if we could all have guns, it's essentially unknowable and this sort of attack is thankfully too rare to draw conclusions.
(But obviously you can use it as an opportunity to make a tasteless ideological argument.)
as opposed to people with anger management issues, the mentally impaired, the stupid, the clumsy and pretty much anyone else who wants one.He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.
Not forgetting kids getting hold of their parents' legally owned guns.
Different yes, better no (IMO)
Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding - and potentially, legally bearing arms - then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.Northwind - Member
Complicated maths basically but certainly nobody can make a factually rooted argument that we'd be safer or less safe from this sort of attack if we could all have guns, it's essentially unknowable and this sort of attack is thankfully too rare to draw conclusions.
I agree that the balancing factor is the very real concerns of a general public who are, in large numbers, demonstrably poor in mastering road vehicles which travel at just tens of miles per hour, holding the means to fire projectiles at hundreds of miles per hour and making split-second decisions at that is, frankly, as laughable as it is chilling.
What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident would highlight any spray of blood from an exit wound, yet apparently, there is none.
Jesus this thread has gone very downhill since the last time I had a look. I reckon what most concerns most people is that lots of innocent people are dead and how horrific it must be for their families.
Now I don't know what goes through the head of a religious nutter but I don't think delivering a powerpoint presentation of everything that has led to them flipping out is really on the agenda.
Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be. Or do you think that you know better. If he claimed he was subjected to abuse as a child would you dismiss that and infer that it must be some religious indoctrination at work? I suspect not so why do you do the reverse?
Sam Harris has a view on guns and although on the face of it I hate them and think the less we have the better it is certainly an interesting read.
[url= http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun ]Sam Harris, the riddle of the gun[/url]
as does everyone else in the vicinity. I guess gun ownership must be the reason crime rates are so low in america.then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.
South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.
[img] 
[/img]
digga - Member
Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding - and potentially, legally bearing arms - then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.
[url= http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check ]Pro-gun myths fact-checked[/url]
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
surfer - MemberVery funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be.
Er, I already answered that. But just to repeat, it's basically context. We're talking about the things they shouted while attacking the building. It's not a complete annotated list of grievances, it's a war cry. So I'm not suggesting that the cartoon wasn't a motivating factor- I'm saying that what they shouted doesn't imply that it's the only one. And common sense pretty much dictates that it's not
South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.
Interestingly, so do Americans and the USA is, let's see...
in the bottom three...
To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.
I have plenty of Muslim friends, my closest friend is Muslim. But I disagree with mixing cultures on such a huge scale as has happened in parts of the UK since New Labour. I think multi-culturalism on the scale practiced in the last 15 years to be a huge mistake, which could lead to a civil war in the next twenty years. I have more in common with Muslims than the majority of my non-Muslim peers and I expect the STW Massive - mainly the fact that we both believe in God.
Human beings are searching for conflict (as any quick browse of the STW forum illustrates) so it is good statesmanship to reduce the potential for conflict - and conflict based on tribal/religious identity is usually the most explosive.
Why, for example, did the West continue its policy of multi-culturalism after 9/11? It makes no sense.