Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

39 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Ok.  Now. Have the same newspaper and advocate for the mutilation of children. Call it trans rights. 
 

Or be a government functionary and advocate for same. 
 

Or advocate for the ongoing rape of same children by immigrant men. 
 

Who was prosecuted for the Muslims who rioted?  Anyone? 

 

Now. Can you write that article and demand that invading Germans, you know ‘the hun’, be killed and driven from the nation? was that also not incitement to violence? 
 

 

Our newspapers are all owned by oligarchs, many of them foreign, and pretty much all of them are right leaning. Funnily enough they dont have the fixation on trans rights your media does. But then, you would probably find widow twanky offensive.

Re rape by immigrants, Government is going to remove right to protection from being sent home to unhealthy regimes. So, if an Afghan does it, hello Kabul! Anyone advocating for them? Probably, but zero fucks given here. 

I did a search to see if there was any Muslim riots. In fact the only unrest involving Muslims in the UK was a 2022 altercation in Leicester between Indians and Pakistani's over, of all things, a cricket match. There havent been any others, despite what your media will tell you. Even the anti Israel protests were non violent. Obnoxious, offensive (but freedom of speech often is) but non violent.

And once again, we take a mania, way out there on the fringe, and make it central to your argument. Nice one.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Damn

"Why does a country become an empire?

It sometimes happens by mistake, in certain cases by accident, often by stupidity, and most frequently because there is no other choice. In reality, most empires are the geopolitical equivalent of a man going to the grocery store for a pint of milk and returning with a live ostrich, a timeshare in Florida, and custody of three children he didn't have when he left. He doesn't know how it happened, but he’s pretty sure it started because he took a wrong turn at the dairy aisle.

Consider the "accidental" empire.

This usually begins with a trade dispute over something incredibly trivial, like nutmeg or beaver pelts. A nation sends a gunboat to protect a warehouse, the captain gets bored and annexes a port, and suddenly the Home Office in London or Rome receives a letter saying, "Good news, we now own a jungle the size of France. Please send administrators, soldiers, and a very large rug to sweep this under."

It is the imperial version of the sunk cost fallacy: you invade a place to protect your trade interests, but then you have to invade the next place over to protect the first place, until eventually, you accidentally rule half the globe simply because you were too awkward to stop marching.

The British acquisition of Hong Kong is essentially the story of the world’s most aggressive drug deal.

In the 1830s, Britain had a problem: they were addicted to Chinese tea, but the Chinese were notably un-addicted to British wool. Facing a trade deficit that threatened to empty the national piggy bank, the British decided the solution was to become the world's premier cartel and flood China with opium. When China politely requested that Britain stop poisoning its population, the British Royal Navy responded by blowing things up in the name of "Free Trade."

During the chaos, Captain Charles Elliot seized Hong Kong Island, mostly because he needed a place to park his boats that wasn't currently on fire. The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, was furious. He famously dismissed the island as "a barren rock with nary a house upon it" and promptly fired Elliot for lacking ambition. Britain didn't want a colony; they wanted a warehouse. But once they had the rock, they had to build a dock, then a police station, and then a racecourse (priorities). Before long, they had accidentally founded a global financial hub, purely because they refused to pay for their Earl Grey with cash.

Then there is the motivation of "stupidity" and "no other choice," which are often indistinguishable.

This is the defensive paranoia strategy. A country convinces itself that the only way to be safe is to conquer its neighbor. But once that neighbor is conquered, you have new neighbors who look suspicious. So, you must conquer them too. It is a pyramid scheme of security where the only way to sleep at night is to ensure that everyone else is awake and paying you taxes. Before long, you are an Emperor, sitting on a throne of bayonets, exhausted, wondering why you couldn't have just built a slightly higher fence.

The Roman Republic is the gold standard for "I didn't mean to conquer the world, it just sort of happened while I was defending myself."

The Romans suffered from a chronic case of geopolitical anxiety; they were convinced that unless they controlled the neighbor's yard, their own house was in mortal danger. This led to a strategy historians call "Defensive Imperialism," which is a polite way of saying "preemptive mugging."

It usually started with a minor ally asking for help. Rome would send a legion to "restore order." Once order was restored, they’d look at the next tribe over and think, "Well, they look a bit shifty, better annex them just to be safe." They went to Sicily to help some mercenaries and "accidentally" ended up owning the island. They fought Carthage to protect trade routes and "accidentally" acquired Spain. By the time Julius Caesar rolled around, Rome had "defended" itself all the way from Portugal to Syria. They were the neighbors from hell who call the police on you for a noise complaint and end up legally acquiring your property through a series of zoning disputes."

https://x.com/Arrogance_0024/status/1999983839699927282

 

I dont mind people criticising the Empire, though I think it somewhat akin to criticising Steam Engines or telegraphs, or other things we dont use anymore. You would think they would find it more worthwhile to criticise the things we are doing today as better use of their time.

But I do find it curious that the same people defend Russia invading Ukraine because NATO, when its just the same kind of crude imperialism that went out of fashion in the 1930's.

[urbanoid]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont mind people criticising the Empire, though I think it somewhat akin to criticising Steam Engines or telegraphs, or other things we dont use anymore. You would think they would find it more worthwhile to criticise the things we are doing today as better use of their time.

But I do find it curious that the same people defend Russia invading Ukraine because NATO, when its just the same kind of crude imperialism that went out of fashion in the 1930's.

I didn't post to criticize, I posted because it was... funny. Not sure what crawled up your ass. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nothing, because I wasnt criticising you posting it.

[urbanoid]

Maybe I should get another coffee. Or maybe you should. Unless you prefer tea (paid for with cash, not opium), that is. 

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Our newspapers are all owned by oligarchs, many of them foreign, and pretty much all of them are right leaning. Funnily enough they dont have the fixation on trans rights your media does. But then, you would probably find widow twanky offensive.

So you dodge the hypothetical. 

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Re rape by immigrants, Government is going to remove right to protection from being sent home to unhealthy regimes. So, if an Afghan does it, hello Kabul! Anyone advocating for them? Probably, but zero fucks given here. 

How many articles were written on the non issue of the grooming gang scandal? How many times did you dismiss it? Is advocacy of rape actionable ?

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

I did a search to see if there was any Muslim riots. In fact the only unrest involving Muslims in the UK was a 2022 altercation in Leicester between Indians and Pakistani's over, of all things, a cricket match.

We have literally talked about the muslims who attacked the pub. 
 

And the many terror attacks. Those Aren’t unrest eh? 

[17thfabn]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In fact the only unrest involving Muslims in the UK was a 2022 altercation in Leicester between Indians and Pakistani's over, of all things, a cricket match. There havent been any others, despite what your media will tell you.

Examples of no unrest by the "religion of peace" In the UK. 

"Just moments after Ariana Grande finished the final song of her May 22, 2017 concert at Manchester Arena, a suicide bomber detonated an explosion on the premises, killing 22 concertgoers and injuring 116 more. ISIS claimed responsibility for what was the deadliest act of terrorism in Britain since the 2005 London metro bombings."

7/7 London Bombings. 52 murdered, over 700 injured.

Manchester Arena bombed during Ariana Grande concert

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Examples of no unrest by the "religion of peace" In the UK. 

"Just moments after Ariana Grande finished the final song of her May 22, 2017 concert at Manchester Arena, a suicide bomber detonated an explosion on the premises, killing 22 concertgoers and injuring 116 more. ISIS claimed responsibility for what was the deadliest act of terrorism in Britain since the 2005 London metro bombings."

7/7 London Bombings. 52 murdered, over 700 injured.

Manchester Arena bombed during Ariana Grande concert

That wasnt a riot, it was a terrorist attack. Classic tanknet goalpost moving.

Today Australia had a terrorist attack on a jewish festival. Who was the man that tackled one of the gunmen? Ahmed Al-Ahmed, a Muslim man. So much for stereotypes.

https://www.facebook.com/tribunephl/posts/muslim-hero-saves-jews-in-bondiahmed-al-ahmed-defied-his-own-stereotype-charging/1266016448908106/

 

[17thfabn]

A terrorist attack IS  UNREST. Not goalpost moving. Note UNREST was the term used.

Edited December 14, 2025 by 17thfabn

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That wasnt a riot, it was a terrorist attack. Classic tanknet goalpost moving.

What was the mob of armed men? 
 

Can English march armed with machetes and other improvised weapons?
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

A terrorist attack IS  UNREST. Not goalpost moving. Note UNREST was the term used.

Alright, so how many IRA terrorists did you classify as 'Catholic terrorists?' Did you? Did anyone? Now why was that, in that their catholicism was central to their feeling of being 'other' and   underwrote their violence? Sometimes even aided and abetted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ryan_(Irish_priest)

Did I see any reflection on the similarities to Abu Hamza? Of course not. Presumably because, being Christian, it was to be culturally blind to any religious difference (except maybe if you were protestant) , other than they were terrorists, which was surely enough. By contrast saying 'Muslim terrorists' was to say something more, that they were 'other'.  But so were the IRA. Catholic terrorists killed far more Britons than Muslims ever have in this country, yes, even more than you lost on 911. Do you see me go off on an orangeman rant about the evils of papacy? Of course not, though some in Northern Ireland certainly did. Yet a muslim kills a Christian, oh well, thats RACE, we can NEVER peacefully coexist in peace with them!

When 7/7 happened, do you know the only person that messaged me was dear old Saladin whom apologised for what had been done in the name of Islam and utterly disavowed it. That is whilst so many here went into another fully fledged. 'Religion of peace' rants, and have seemingly learned nothing in the 2 decades since.

People are themselves They are not just their religion. There is more than that which defines them.. Even their relgion does not extol violence, just the fucked up sect that turned it into a death cult.

  So can we actually start making that distinction, rather than keep ranting like its 2001? Even your own president seemingly doesnt see Islam as an existential threat, now he is selling Stealth fighters to them. Apparently they are ONLY a threat when they cross on a small boat into Europe, then they are a cultural great evil. Saudis? All great guys, even though they created 911.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

What was the mob of armed men? 
 

Can English march armed with machetes and other improvised weapons?
 

 

What Mob of Armed Men? Jesus christ Ryan, and you please be a little more specific so I can disagree with you with knowledge!

A sikh can IIRC march with a machete in his waistband. Im not aware of anyone else extended that particular liberty, and if any is, then clearly the Police want a kick up the bum for not dealing with it. Ive known someone arrested for having a plastic 'He-man' sword in their car, so Im not buying the idea the police are so lax as you think

[urbanoid]

Looks like more bright ideas involving taxing small businesses out of existence?

https://x.com/robert_lyman/status/2000300951136043046

 

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, so how many IRA terrorists did you classify as 'Catholic terrorists?'

 

Look at the Bondi shooting. The men were Pakistani, not Palestinian. 
 

If you had Italian and Spanish and German catholics showing up to set off bombs and shoot up RIC offices then you’d have a _Catholic_ situation. 
 

What have been the nationalities of the various terrorists in the UK? 

[rmgill]

From Grok:

 

Here’s a quick rundown of the main successful Islamist terror attacks in the UK since late 2005, focusing on the perpetrators’ nationalities or origins where known.

- 2007 Glasgow Airport attack : Both attackers were British citizens (Bilal Abdulla born in UK to Iraqi parents, Kafeel Ahmed Indian national who died).

- 2013 Lee Rigby murder (Woolwich) : Both Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were British citizens of Nigerian heritage/converts.

- 2017 Westminster attack : Khalid Masood, British citizen born in UK, convert to Islam.

- 2017 Manchester Arena bombing : Salman Abedi, British citizen of Libyan descent; his brother also involved, same background.

- 2017 London Bridge/Borough Market attack : Khuram Butt British citizen of Pakistani origin, Rachid Redouane had Moroccan/Libyan dual citizenship, Youssef Zaghba Italian/Moroccan.

- 2019 London Bridge stabbing : Usman Khan, British citizen of Pakistani descent.

- 2020 Streatham stabbing : Sudesh Amman, British citizen (born in UK to Sri Lankan Tamil parents).

- 2020 Reading stabbings : Khairi Saadallah, Libyan national, asylum seeker/refugee in UK.

- 2021 Murder of David Amess : Ali Harbi Ali, British citizen of Somali origin.

- 2021 Liverpool hospital bombing : Emad Al-Swealmeen, Iraqi-born asylum seeker who converted to Christianity but classified as Islamist motive.

 

Most attackers over the past twenty years have been British citizens , often second-generation immigrants from Pakistan, Libya, Nigeria, or North Africa, plus a few converts. Actual foreign nationals carrying out attacks are rarer, with Libyan and Moroccan examples standing out in some cases.

 

Whats the common thread?  Nigerian to Indian ancestry. 

[urbanoid]

 

https://x.com/MorgothsReview/status/2000577419808247977

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2000559090762719289

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Looks like more bright ideas involving taxing small businesses out of existence?

https://x.com/robert_lyman/status/2000300951136043046

 

Pubs have been on the skids since 2010, particularly since Covid. But predictably its only recognised as a problem when there is a Labour Government.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

 

https://x.com/MorgothsReview/status/2000577419808247977

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2000559090762719289

 

From what I heard, she was so impressed that these guys when these guys fucked the entire country with Brexit, now she sees it as an opportunity to do the same. 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, rmgill said:

Look at the Bondi shooting. The men were Pakistani, not Palestinian. 
 

If you had Italian and Spanish and German catholics showing up to set off bombs and shoot up RIC offices then you’d have a _Catholic_ situation. 
 

What have been the nationalities of the various terrorists in the UK? 

Once again, one Australian, one came from Pakistan 27 years ago. 

No, we wouldnt, and we didnt. We didnt call the IRA 'Catholic terrorists' though they assuredly were.  We didnt even call them 'Irish' terrorists. We just called them terrorists, and denied them the right to be seen as anything than what they actually were, cowardly murderers.

Its not our fixation on the religion or nationality of terrorists here, thats yours.  I see two homocidal maniacs, one of which deserves to spend their life in prison. Concentrating on their faith is to try and make them martyrs for something they dont deserve. They were just two miserable criminals who killed innocent jews.

You might want to honour their motivation by escalating them to a common 'muslim' problem. I see two defective human beings. You dont defeat terrorism by meeting their demands to be seen as they wish.  When you get spree shooters, you dont even post their names anymore because you dont wish to give currency to others whom might want to do the same thing. So why fixate on their religion? 

Mainly Irish, either side of the border. Yes, we had some immigrants, we had converts to islam, we had people born here.  But its academic. We could send all the immigrants whom have been here 40 years back home and guess what? We would still have terrorists, far right, or nationalist. We even had a spate of Welsh separatist bombings in the 1960's, did you know that?  None of it commends importing terrorists. At the same time it proves the futility of living in a world without some maniac with a bomb or a gun 'if only the leftists/rightists/bureaucrats did the right  thing!'

Your own country proves that whatever your immigrant status, you can still have home grown terrorism.  Timothy McVeigh proved this.

There is a fantasy in your country currently, to cut yourself off from all outsiders, to become like Mao's china and suddenly, you would apparently ilve in peace, untroubled by outsiders whom might murder you. The only violence you presumably would have  to suffer is the 46000 whom die  from gun violence every year.  Somehow I doubt they were all muslim triggermen.

Compared to that, all the death from  terrorists in my own country, all the death from terrorists across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, even your 911, are an absolutely drop in the bucket. Statistically irrelevant, even lower than car accidents or smoking.

But of course, you cant make a political case on the back of those I guess.

 

Edited December 16, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Whats the political motivation of the IRA? Is it wed to catholic values or Irish nationalism? 
 

The Christmas attacks by muslims, what’s the motivation there? 
 

Why are Pakistanis motivated to kill jews specifically? 

Edited December 16, 2025 by rmgill

[urbanoid]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a fantasy in your country currently, to cut yourself off from all outsiders, to become like Mao's china and suddenly, you would apparently ilve in peace, untroubled by outsiders whom might murder you. The only violence you presumably would have  to suffer is the 46000 whom die  from gun violence every year.  Somehow I doubt they were all muslim triggermen.

Of course not, majority of them were black.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Presumably why the problem is ignored so effectively, Zardoz at work.

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Presumably why the problem is ignored so effectively, Zardoz at work.

In the U.S. the vast amount of murders are in the mid size to large cities. Which are virtually all run by Democratic mayors and city councils. 

Locally we had riots in 2001. Soft on crime policies were invoked. Murders went from around 50-60 a year to around 90. After a few years enforcement was tightened up and the murder numbers went back down. Then the george floyd era struck. Soft on crime strikes again! Murder numbers back up to around 90 per year. 

Problem is not ignored. It is talked about constantly. Obviously the talk has not resulted in solutions. 

Edited December 16, 2025 by 17thfabn

[rmgill]

If the Obama ere consent decrees get shitcanned then we will see some PD get back to their jobs. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Considering you had this exactly same problem before Obama, and you have the exact same problem a decade after Obama, one might wonder why ditching any of his work to bugger up the US Government would make any difference at all. It was already broken before he got behind the wheel. 

Anyway, getting back on track. I did a search and found out how many people have been murdered by Muslim identifying terrorists in Europe since 1979. Know how many it is?

802. Thats ALL Europe mark you. I think France, the worst hit, had something like 390. Compare that to the 3500 whom died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles, and you begin to see why we are fairly blaise about it.

Granted its a lot more in the middle east, Africa and South Asia, but that they live there it isnt too surprising that there  they killed 250000 worldwide. Apalling, id be the first to admit.

But compare that to the US Statistics. Assuming those figures for 46000 are an average (I could go and hit the statistics and track it down to get a fully accurate track) that would imply that casualties from gun crime in the US could be as high as  2 million, 70 thousand since 1979. 

Yes, Im sure its rather less than that. But less than all the victims of muslim terrorism worldwide since 1979? Probably not, no. You would have to get as low as 5,500 yearly to do better than that.

And yet we in Europe are in apparent decline from islamic immigration.   I mean Jesus Christ, give me a break, really? Do any of you actually look at the actual statistics before passing cold judgement because some cool guy on a podcast or radio show told you something? And if he didnt check, where is that leaving the certainties you throw at us?

Europe has an immigration problem, I quite agree. On that you are quite right. That we have gone 7 weeks in the Uk without a boat crossing tells me that yes, it is, perhaps, slowly, being dealt with. Europe as a whole will deal with it, because it doesnt want fascists running it.

And 10 years hence when we talk about this, im willing to bet our problem will be solved, and America's guncrime problem wont. And still you will be throwing invective at us for banning guns, our socialised medicare, our indifference to immigration. And for you, nothing will have changed. These are purely deflection tactics from solving your own problems, rather than reflecting on the huge problems you leave in plain sight your politicians are indifferent to solving.

By all means, stick a pin in it, if im still here, if Tanknet is still here, Ill be perfectly happy to admit if im wrong. Somehow I doubt the reverse will be true.

 

Edited December 17, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith