Terror attack in London - British soldier hacked to death

And WTF does that have to do with the British Soldier being killed????

Nothing. Whiny the lying sack of shit is hijacking another thread just to hear himself speak.

He is the very definition of s POST WHORE!

Staff edit, CC


It's pretty amazing, but you can actually make DizzyWay seem semi intelligent by comparison. We all do what we can.

You're the guy who was in favor of vigilante preemptive shooting of people that look like foreigners--of course you're against any gun control. Maybe I can use some type of symbol when I am being sarcstic. Some folks think exagerrating the opposite is a good way on making one's point.

No surprise there. If you had any human decency, you would apologize to Alzheimers victims and their families. Afterall, your turn may come.

Old Dingus

Staff edit, CC


It's pretty amazing, but you can actually make DizzyWay seem semi intelligent by comparison. We all do what we can. And you do it very well.


You're the guy who was in favor of vigilante preemptive shooting of people that look like foreigners--of course you're against any gun control. Maybe I can use some type of symbol when I am being sarcstic. Some folks think exagerrating the opposite is a good way on making one's point. Odd, you didn't seem sarcastic until you were called on it. No, you started your post with "I wish I had written this", and sadly whether it is Arabs, (or people who "look like" Arabs), or Blacks, or Jews, or Irish, or .... too many people have dies at the hands of mobs who DID & DO believe exactly what you aspoused. Hard to read that post even now and find your sarcasim.


No surprise there. If you had any human decency, you would apologize to Alzheimers victims and their families. Afterall, your turn may come.

Old Dingus Originally Posted by Old Dingus

Sadly, for me, it is almost inevitable that my time will come. Alzhiemers is largely genetic and both my parents had it; I saw it very up close and personal for many years. I have sincere sympathy for the people--and especially the families--of Alzhiemers victims.

Given the nature of this forum--and the level of insults thrown around with great frequency, I would suspect you can make the same comment about all kinds of groups who might feel insulted by the less-than-politically-correct folks on here. Will you appologize to all the Blacks who were lynched by people who held to your rattlesnake mentality without the sarcasim?

Why didn't anyone help?

While it is well known that Brits cannot carry guns, a lesser known law prohibits any subject of the Queen from carrying a knife of consequence, pepper spray or a stun gun.

The liberal statists want it's citizens helpless, defenseless, and victimized.......

In the 1960s we shouted "power to the people"....I meant it then and I mean it more-so now......today's liberals (yesterday's protesters) shout "Power To Obama and the State." Fuck them !

What the fuck is a literalist? Is that like a truthist? Or a jerkoffist?

It's amazing how important it is for so many of you simple mindists to label everybody else. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

lit·er·al·ism (ltr--lzm) n. 1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine.
2. Literal portrayal; realism.

liter·al·ist n.
liter·al·istic adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
______________________________ ______________________________ __________
Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible.[1][2]
A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by Conservative Christians[disambiguation needed],[3] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians. The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.[4] Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.
There are two kinds of literal interpretation, letterism and the more common historical-grammatical method. Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.[6] The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.
Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as "literalists" or Biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also inerrancy. Often the term Biblical literalism is used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.[7][8][9] A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[10]
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________
lit·er·al·ism

noun \ˈli-t(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\






Definition of LITERALISM

1
: adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression <biblical literalism>

2
: fidelity to observable fact : realism
— lit·er·al·ist \-list\ noun
— lit·er·al·is·tic \ˌli-t(ə-)rə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list li.hidden{ display: none;}li.more-sent-link{ background: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link{ color: #717274; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.more-link:hover .text,#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link a.hide-link:hover .text{ text-decoration: underline;}.example-sentences ol.expanded-list a.more-link,.example-sentences ol.collapsed-list a.hide-link{ display: none;}#content .definition div.d li.more-sent-link span.icon{ padding-right: 2px;}Examples of LITERALISM

1. <if audiences ever got the literalism they claim they want in movies, they'd be fast asleep by the second reel>

First Known Use of LITERALISM

1644

Related to LITERALISM

Synonymsverisimilitude, naturalism, realism, representationalism, verismoRelated Wordsphoto-realism; authenticity, grittiness
more




Rhymes with LITERALISM

absenteeism, absolutism, abstractionism, adventurism, aestheticism, Afrocentrism, agnosticism, alcoholism, amateurism, anabaptism, anachronism, Anglicanism, animalism, antagonism, Arianism, astigmatism, athleticism, automatism, behaviorism, Big Brotherism, bilingualism, Bonapartism, cannibalism, capitalism, Cartesianism, Catholicism, charlatanism, collectivism, commercialism, communalism, Confucianism, conservatism, constructivism, consumerism, corporatism, creationism, determinism, do-nothingism, eclecticism, ecotourism, ecumenism, egocentrism, empiricism, epicurism, eroticism, essentialism, ethnocentrism, evangelism, exoticism, expansionism, expressionism, Fabianism, factionalism, fanaticism, favoritism, federalism, Fenianism, feuilletonism, Fourierism, fraternalism, Freudianism, funambulism, functionalism, hermeticism, Hispanicism, historicism, hooliganism, illiberalism, illusionism, impressionism, infantilism, inflationism, initialism, insularism, irredentism, Jacobinism, Keynesianism, know-nothingism, lesbianism, liberalism, libertinism, Lutheranism, Lysenkoism, magic realism, malapropism, mercantilism, messianism, metabolism, metamorphism, militarism, minimalism, monasticism, monotheism, mutualism, naturalism, Naziritism, negativism, neologism, neo-Nazism, neorealism, nominalism, nonconformism, objectivism, obscurantism, obstructionism, opportunism, pacificism, parallelism, pastoralism, paternalism, patriotism, Peeping Tomism, perfectionism, photo-realism, plebeianism, polytheism, positivism, postmodernism, primitivism, progressivism, protectionism, Protestantism, provincialism, puritanism, radicalism, rationalism, recidivism, reductionism, regionalism, relativism, revisionism, revivalism, ritualism, romanticism, salvationism, sansculottism, scholasticism, sectionalism, secularism, separatism, serialism, Slavophilism, somnambulism, Stakhanovism, structuralism, subjectivism, teetotalism, theocentrism, triumphalism, Uncle Tomism, ventriloquism, vigilantism, workaholism [-]hide

absenteeism, absolutism, abstractionism, adventurism, aestheticism, Afrocentrism, agnosticism, alcoholism, amateurism, anabaptism, anachro... [+]more




#spanish_reference .learn_more{ margin-bottom: 16px;}Learn More About LITERALISM

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "literalism"


Browse

Next Word in the Dictionary: literalize
Previous Word in the Dictionary: literal (noun)
All Words Near: literalism
______________________________ ______________________________ ____________

Looks like it is a word to me.

Old Dingus

More on the beheading bastard:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...der-scene.html

It looks like this scumbag participated in a 2006 protest in which he got into a fight after arguing he had the right to behead those who insult Islam.



It looks like the Brits didn't pay attention to him.

The question is: if they pay attention to comments lke that, what do you do about it? Arrest them pre-emptively? Tail them 24/7? Make sure they don't have sharp objects near by?

I don't ask this with any sarcasim, but sincerely. To have someone act that way and say that--that they have a right to commit a crime--and then have them do it is terrible. But how many people do we detain who would never act on a heated comment they make in order to keep a sicko like this locked up? I don't know the answer.

If he was not a citizen in 2006, deport him. Put him on a watch list if you wish, that seems quite reasonable. But how long can you detain a person for what he did in 2006? I would think far less than 7 years. What he did was evil and had the police accidentally killed him while trying to restrain him I would not have shead a tear. But I worry very much about locking people away based upon the Thought Police.

As sad as any terrorist murder is--and I think it's obvious that is what this was--how do you prevent them yet still allow the freedoms we want? I personally believe in this age we need a serious discussion about how much freedom/privacy we wish to give up for how much security--WE CANNOT HAVE ALL OF BOTH. But I fear we as a society have lost the ability to have those complex debates about ISSUES, especially those that have no perfect answers.

What I keep seeing--and what scares me more than anything with events like this--is the laughing face of Che Guavara. Those who have not read his writings on guerrilla warfare and terrorism really should--it is a very scary piece of work when todays events are seen through it. Che may have been a communist, but most of what he wrote about revolution is independent of ideology.

The question is: if they pay attention to comments lke that, what do you do about it? Arrest them pre-emptively? Tail them 24/7? Make sure they don't have sharp objects near by?

I don't ask this with any sarcasim, but sincerely. To have someone act that way and say that--that they have a right to commit a crime--and then have them do it is terrible. But how many people do we detain who would never act on a heated comment they make in order to keep a sicko like this locked up? I don't know the answer.

If he was not a citizen in 2006, deport him. Put him on a watch list if you wish, that seems quite reasonable. But how long can you detain a person for what he did in 2006? I would think far less than 7 years. What he did was evil and had the police accidentally killed him while trying to restrain him I would not have shead a tear. But I worry very much about locking people away based upon the Thought Police.

As sad as any terrorist murder is--and I think it's obvious that is what this was--how do you prevent them yet still allow the freedoms we want? I personally believe in this age we need a serious discussion about how much freedom/privacy we wish to give up for how much security--WE CANNOT HAVE ALL OF BOTH. But I fear we as a society have lost the ability to have those complex debates about ISSUES, especially those that have no perfect answers. Originally Posted by Old-T

Good points all.

This guy was homegrown, so they couldn't deport him.

I don't think his comment about beheading was a heated one. He simply asserted the right to kill at the protest and when someone said he didn't have the right, the fight above ensued.

But, while you couldn't put him in jail for 7 years, it does not appear they put him in jail at all. Seems to me he should have done at least a few months based on the photos above. Maybe he might have mellowed just a bit when he realized fanaticism had a price?

Instead he simply continued on getting more and more radicalized.

But rather than focusing on the individual nutcases, might it not be smarter for Britain (and the US) to at least reduce the supply of radicals and their preachers in the first place?

How much easier would life be if the Brits had not admitted so many Pakistanis in the first place? It's a small country with its own low skilled workers. Did they really need that much unskilled immigration from a poor Muslim country?

What if Britain (and the US) had focused immigration only from other European countries, China, Japan, Korea, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa (i.e., non-Muslim) and limited THAT immigration only to skilled labor and educated elites?

How much better would both of our situations be?

It's not like we didn't already know 30+ years ago that Muslim populations were trouble - with limited exceptions like Turkey.

We should have cherry picked the countries from which we accepted immigrants.

ExNY, I can't disagree with any of that. I do believe an imigration policy that is more selective is a sane way to start improving a number of things. It won't be easy to get agreement on the parameters, but it's another one of the discussions we need to have unless we like random chaotic.

Electricians will want quotas on foreign electricians, doctors on foreign doctors, etc. Each ethnic group will believe there are valid reasons their group should have preferential treatment. When a US-supported government like South Vietnam is overthrown there will be some extenuating circumstances. But the discussion--and a good, not perfect policy--would be progress.

PS: The weather back here in NYC reminds me why I too am an exNYer.

I've been away for a week in Cornwall screwing my 21 yr old, so have not been spinning in my grave, but a bit busy.

Britain does have a constitution, but it is not codified.

Britain used to have a right/duty to bear arms, but it has been slowly reduced.

I don't think this very bizarre case is a suitable reason to make generalizations on gun control.

I don't recall anything in the UK press using it to justify giving every UK adult a gun.

The people wandering around as if nothing had happened was bizarre. Phlegmatic or what? Stiff upper lip or what?

UK was never liberal before Thatcher.

Been watching a TV series about the Tudors. That was very bloody.

The US constitution etc. was heavily influenced by British and European intellectuals.

English right to bear arms comes from King Alfred's time.

That's it for now, just trying to correct several misconceptions about Britain.

The danger is that this incident, and other similar ones, will generate a backlash and the emergence of nasty racist political parties.

What does he know?



I think this suspect was Cleaverless. Originally Posted by LexusLover

??????????????

Not sure what you are saying. Most police are not armed with guns, but armed units exist and often accompany my wife when she locks up mental cases.

, so there is no fundamental principle of law like the Second Amendment for the Brits to argue about. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Incorrect.

ExNY, I can't disagree with any of that. I do believe an imigration policy that is more selective is a sane way to start improving a number of things. It won't be easy to get agreement on the parameters, but it's another one of the discussions we need to have unless we like random chaotic.

Electricians will want quotas on foreign electricians, doctors on foreign doctors, etc. Each ethnic group will believe there are valid reasons their group should have preferential treatment. When a US-supported government like South Vietnam is overthrown there will be some extenuating circumstances. But the discussion--and a good, not perfect policy--would be progress.

PS: The weather back here in NYC reminds me why I too am an exNYer. Originally Posted by Old-T

Be thankful you were in NYC and not up in the Adirondacks. THREE feet of snow on Memorial Day weekend. LOL.

I've been away for a week in Cornwall screwing my 21 yr old, so have not been spinning in my grave, but a bit busy.

Britain does have a constitution, but it is not codified. ??? Is that a subtle way of saying "No constitution"?

Britain used to have a right/duty to bear arms, but it has been slowly reduced. True. Going back to English long bowmen?

I don't think this very bizarre case is a suitable reason to make generalizations on gun control. True.

I don't recall anything in the UK press using it to justify giving every UK adult a gun.

The people wandering around as if nothing had happened was bizarre. Phlegmatic or what? Stiff upper lip or what? Judging by the neighborhood, disinterested 3rd world immigrants. I doubt they know what a still upper lip is.

UK was never liberal before Thatcher. What? Then who was she running against? You mean those governments after WWII that gave the country away to the coal miners unions were NOT liberal?

Been watching a TV series about the Tudors. That was very bloody. But the tits and ass were first class.

The US constitution etc. was heavily influenced by British and European intellectuals. True.

English right to bear arms comes from King Alfred's time.

That's it for now, just trying to correct several misconceptions about Britain.

The danger is that this incident, and other similar ones, will generate a backlash and the emergence of nasty racist political parties. Originally Posted by essence

It didn't take long. The English Defence League is on the march.