Terrorist Attacks

[Dr The Singh]

Nobody's suggesting we're impregnable but the notion that Europe's freedom of movement laws should be considered a chief cause for concern regarding UK national security is disingenuous when that's generally not where UK terrorists come from and when we've staunchly defended our right to control our own borders for this very reason amongst others.

 

Movement within the Schengen area is a genuine cause for concern regarding terrorist activity within the countries signed up to it but once you get to a closed border, particularly one into the most heavily CCTV monitored country in Europe (in the world even?), you lose the right to make that argument.  Any terrorist attacks in a closed border state are because that state's counter-terrorism policies failed.  Presuming anything can be blamed at all - sometimes you simply can't monitor everything and everyone.

Your the one that called what I said rubbish, which implies as such....make your mind up, one minute you say the free movement could cause fanatics to come to uk as rubbish, and now it's a genuine concern

 

 Your now saying 'any attacks in a close border are possible, because policies fail', but before you said that this type of terrorist attack couldn't happen because our anti terror units are super duper, you actually said 'one of the best counter-terrorism units in the world' '

 

 Your one confused person, before you say what other people write as rubbish..............

[Bettsj2]

Your the one that called what I said rubbish, which implies as such....make your mind up, one minute you say the free movement could cause fanatics to come to uk as rubbish, and now it's a genuine concern

Your now saying 'any attacks in a close border are possible, because policies fail', but before you said that this type of terrorist attack couldn't happen because our anti terror units are super duper, you actually said 'one of the best counter-terrorism units in the world' '

Your one confused person, before you say what other people write as rubbish..............

I hate to do this.

*you're*

[Dr The Singh]

I hate to do this.

*you're*

 

[Bettsj2]

Soz

[Carl the Llama]

Your the one that called what I said rubbish, which implies as such....make your mind up, one minute you say the free movement could cause fanatics to come to uk as rubbish, and now it's a genuine concern

 

 Your now saying 'any attacks in a close border are possible, because policies fail', but before you said that this type of terrorist attack couldn't happen because our anti terror units are super duper, you actually said 'one of the best counter-terrorism units in the world' '

 

 Your one confused person, before you say what other people write as rubbish..............

Only thing I'm confused about is how you've come to that conclusion from my posts...  

 

I'm not sure how you think I've said "this type of terrorist attack couldn't happen" when I'm simply contesting your suggestion that people in the UK need to be scared that freedom of movement laws make the UK an easier target.  

 

When London got targeted in the 7/7 attacks it wasn't dudes from Brussels blowing themselves up, they were UK nationals.  EU freedom of movement which was just as present then was not a factor.  That's what I'm calling rubbish.

 

But I digress, I didn't mean to upset you, it's just a bit frustrating to see anti-EU rhetoric in here; when there's already plenty of legitimate points against the union being made in other venues there's no need to add scary untruths to it.

Edited 23 March 2016 by Carl the Llama

[Dr The Singh]

Only thing I'm confused about is how you've come to that conclusion from my posts...  

 

I'm not sure how you think I've said "this type of terrorist attack couldn't happen" when I'm simply contesting your suggestion that people in the UK need to be scared that freedom of movement laws make the UK an easier target.  

 

When London got targeted in the 7/7 attacks it wasn't dudes from Brussels blowing themselves up, they were UK nationals.  EU freedom of movement which was just as present then was not a factor.  That's what I'm calling rubbish.

 

But I digress, I didn't mean to upset you, it's just a bit frustrating to see anti-EU rhetoric in here; when there's already plenty of legitimate points against the union being made in other venues there's no need to add scary untruths to it.

Again, your changing what your saying, cus that's not what you said, I said, EU border movement could lead to terrorists comming to Britian, you said and called RUBBISH:

 

He could target Britain, but we have UK border control and - if some are to believed - one of the best counter-terrorism units in the world.  If a terrorist eludes both of those to get inside the country without being picked up on I don't see how it can be blamed on EU freedom of movement laws.  It's already been shown that terrorists attacking the UK will most likely be people born and radicalised within the country anyway.  You could understand French citizens post-Paris making that argument given their complete lack of a border and the reports that the Paris attackers travelled by car from Belgium but a British citizen doing so makes no sense.

 

I said

 

I would have thought the words 'could' and 'possibly' would suggest that it would not be a walk in the park.  As much as our anti terrorist units are great, it RUBBISH and STUPID to suggest were not impregnable and it's already proven that european agencies are overstretched, the belgium authorities are already crying in there bowls.  These agencies that provide the intel to british agencies..........gaps in information, gaps in intel leads to breakages in the system........I would have thought this would have been obvious!!!

 

 

You said

 

Nobody's suggesting we're impregnable but the notion that Europe's freedom of movement laws should be considered a chief cause for concern regarding UK national security is disingenuous when that's generally not where UK terrorists come from and when we've staunchly defended our right to control our own borders for this very reason amongst others.

 

Movement within the Schengen area is a genuine cause for concern regarding terrorist activity within the countries signed up to it but once you get to a closed border, particularly one into the most heavily CCTV monitored country in Europe (in the world even?), you lose the right to make that argument.  Any terrorist attacks in a closed border state are because that state's counter-terrorism policies failed.  Presuming anything can be blamed at all - sometimes you simply can't monitor everything

 

To rubbish my comments and come with that statement confuses me, then say were a closed border hence I lose my arguement, then you say we can't monitor everything...........so that FACT is, even if we have a close border, which isn;t closed in essence as we are part of the freedom of movement, we should be concerned.  Unless our borders are really closed we will be under a greater threat then being under Schengen.

 

So tell me why my initial comment was RUBBISH??????

Edited 24 March 2016 by Dr The Singh

[Bellend Sebastian]

That's gone well, mate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/23/london-man-confronted-muslim-woman-explain-brussels-attacks-arrested

[AKCJ]

That's gone well, mate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/23/london-man-confronted-muslim-woman-explain-brussels-attacks-arrested

 

Incredible that people still think that they can call people what they like over the internet these days.

[hejammy]

Shock horror.

Bunch of ***** want to kill everyone and take over the world.

Been happening for centuries people. Dont

Concern yourself with it. Just go where you wanna go, do what you wanna do with whoever you want to do it with.

If some **** wants to blow you up for no reason, **** it. What you gonna do? Stay in your house forever?

You cant change these people, nobody can. If they have it in their head its a good idea then you, me, politicians, community leaders, priests, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers arent gonna stop them.

Twenty years from now, Islamic fundamentalists will be a thing of the past and it'll be some other wacko group causing shit.

History just repeats itself with this crap in one guise or another. The end message is the same, just different colours and different reasons. In the end though, the many outweigh the few and this stuff just dies out.

Its shit that people die, but throughout history, since time began, people have been getting killed and society evolves and moves on. Its the only constant along with greed that history continuously repeats.

Too much credit is given to these organisations. They're a basic ragtag bunch who dont really have a long term plan they just want to fvck stuff up. It doesnt work. It never has and never will (terrorism that is). These groups get wiped one by one until eventually, their recruitment halts because no matter how dissalusioned someone might be, they realise that actually, these actions have no reaction. Charlie Ebdo still write their articles, people still use airports and go to gigs.

The price for the penny to drop is always high but the penny will always drop. Just takes time.

 

Haha Betts - rant over.....

 

Oh and yes I do agree - you can't stop living!

Edited 24 March 2016 by hejammy

[Guest MattP]

That's gone well, mate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/23/london-man-confronted-muslim-woman-explain-brussels-attacks-arrested

 

If he did that then he's clearly a Grade A bellend, but being arrested for it?

 

People keep going on about how ‘The terrorists hate our freedoms’, they aren't the only ones, some people at the very heart of our societies seem to hate freedom too and want to rein in the right to speak freely, that's right for everyone, no matter how stupid the action or opinion.

 

We have to defend our values against both nutters with bombs and a PC mob with Twitter accounts.

[bovril]

If he did that then he's clearly a Grade A bellend, but being arrested for it?

 

People keep going on about how ‘The terrorists hate our freedoms’, they aren't the only ones, some people at the very heart of our societies seem to hate freedom too and want to rein in the right to speak freely, that's right for everyone, no matter how stupid the action or opinion.

 

We have to defend our values against both nutters with bombs and a PC mob with Twitter accounts.

 

I have to agree with this, unfortunately. The guy is a cvnt, name and shame him and let him face humiliation. But arresting him doesn't really sit well with me.

[Carl the Llama]

Again, your changing what your saying, cus that's not what you said, I said, EU border movement could lead to terrorists comming to Britian, you said and called RUBBISH:

 

He could target Britain, but we have UK border control and - if some are to believed - one of the best counter-terrorism units in the world.  If a terrorist eludes both of those to get inside the country without being picked up on I don't see how it can be blamed on EU freedom of movement laws.  It's already been shown that terrorists attacking the UK will most likely be people born and radicalised within the country anyway.  You could understand French citizens post-Paris making that argument given their complete lack of a border and the reports that the Paris attackers travelled by car from Belgium but a British citizen doing so makes no sense.

 

I said

 

I would have thought the words 'could' and 'possibly' would suggest that it would not be a walk in the park.  As much as our anti terrorist units are great, it RUBBISH and STUPID to suggest were not impregnable and it's already proven that european agencies are overstretched, the belgium authorities are already crying in there bowls.  These agencies that provide the intel to british agencies..........gaps in information, gaps in intel leads to breakages in the system........I would have thought this would have been obvious!!!

 

 

You said

 

Nobody's suggesting we're impregnable but the notion that Europe's freedom of movement laws should be considered a chief cause for concern regarding UK national security is disingenuous when that's generally not where UK terrorists come from and when we've staunchly defended our right to control our own borders for this very reason amongst others.

 

Movement within the Schengen area is a genuine cause for concern regarding terrorist activity within the countries signed up to it but once you get to a closed border, particularly one into the most heavily CCTV monitored country in Europe (in the world even?), you lose the right to make that argument.  Any terrorist attacks in a closed border state are because that state's counter-terrorism policies failed.  Presuming anything can be blamed at all - sometimes you simply can't monitor everything

 

To rubbish my comments and come with that statement confuses me, then say were a closed border hence I lose my arguement, then you say we can't monitor everything...........so that FACT is, even if we have a close border, which isn;t closed in essence as we are part of the freedom of movement, we should be concerned.  Unless our borders are really closed we will be under a greater threat then being under Schengen.

 

So tell me why my initial comment was RUBBISH??????

I've told you what was rubbish: The claim that EU freedom of movement somehow opens up the UK to a greater terrorist threat when it's not been a factor in previous attacks on the UK where the terrorist have deployed radicalised UK citizens.

 

I think you've made it clear you don't understand EU freedom of movement; you seem to be under the impression that it works like the Schengen agreement allowing terrorists to move between countries unchecked and undetected, in fact you've said you think we're under a greater threat than those in the Schengen area which suggests to me that you don't understand either key terms being discussed.  Schengen is an agreement between certain EU countries not to have any border checks at all for people travelling between those member states.  Freedom of movement is an agreement that EU citizens have the right to live and work in other EU countries pending certain caveats like being a known security concern.

 

While it's true that terrorists can still make their way into the UK undetected, it's because of the inherent imperfection of our ability to know everything about everyone always - not because of freedom of movement.  They still have to get through UK border control at the closed border into the UK without setting off intel alerts.  At that point it becomes a failing of UK & international intelligence gathering efforts rather than EU movement.

 

EU freedom of movement does not make the UK more likely to suffer a terrorist attack, it just means an EU citizen has the right to live and work in the UK if there is no known cause for a national security concern surrounding them.

 

Please stop telling me I'm confused about this, all that confuses me is how else to say the same thing in a way that you'll understand which seems to be a losing battle if you seriously believe that "Unless our borders are really closed [they are; that's what border control is] we will be under a greater threat then being under Schengen [this makes no sense]".

 

I'm interested to know what exactly the terms "closed border", "EU freedom of movement" and "Schengen area" mean to you if this comment still hasn't cleared things up well enough.

 

Edit:  I'll give you the closed border argument if you're calling for North-Korean style border laws.  To save us all from pedantry I think what I'm referring to as a closed border here would be referred to in diplomatic terms as a controlled border or something like that.  We definitely do not have a full-on open border with any state. 

 

Edit edit: Except ROI.

Edited 25 March 2016 by Carl the Llama

[Buce]

I've told you what was rubbish: The claim that EU freedom of movement somehow opens up the UK to a greater terrorist threat when it's not been a factor in previous attacks on the UK where the terrorist have deployed radicalised UK citizens.

I think you've made it clear you don't understand EU freedom of movement; you seem to be under the impression that it works like the Schengen agreement allowing terrorists to move between countries unchecked and undetected, in fact you've said you think we're under a greater threat than those in the Schengen area which suggests to me that you don't understand either key terms being discussed. Schengen is an agreement between certain EU countries not to have any border checks at all for people travelling between those member states. Freedom of movement is an agreement that EU citizens have the right to live and work in other EU countries pending certain caveats like being a known security concern.

While it's true that terrorists can still make their way into the UK undetected, it's because of the inherent imperfection of our ability to know everything about everyone always - not because of freedom of movement. They still have to get through UK border control at the closed border into the UK without setting off intel alerts. At that point it becomes a failing of UK & international intelligence gathering efforts rather than EU movement.

EU freedom of movement does not make the UK more likely to suffer a terrorist attack, it just means an EU citizen has the right to live and work in the UK if there is no known cause for a national security concern surrounding them.

Please stop telling me I'm confused about this, all that confuses me is how else to say the same thing in a way that you'll understand which seems to be a losing battle if you seriously believe that "Unless our borders are really closed [they are; that's what border control is] we will be under a greater threat then being under Schengen [this makes no sense]".

I'm interested to know what exactly the terms "closed border", "EU freedom of movement" and "Schengen area" mean to you if this comment still hasn't cleared things up well enough.

Edit: I'll give you the closed border argument if you're calling for North-Korean style border laws. To save us all from pedantry I think what I'm referring to as a closed border here would be referred to in diplomatic terms as a controlled border or something like that. We definitely do not have a full-on open border with any state.

Eire?

[Carl the Llama]

Eire?

Smart arse.  

 

Somehow I doubt the good doctor's talking about jihadis getting in from Ireland though.

[hackneyfox]

We have numerous points of entry both legal and illegal, that's the problem with having a border 11,073 miles long.

[Carl the Llama]

We have numerous points of entry both legal and illegal, that's the problem with having a border 11,073 miles long.

Precisely.  It's not freedom to work in other EU countries that we need be worried about.

[Thracian]

The Brussels terror attacks were carried out by Belgian nationals. THEY WERE BORN IN BELGIUM! they were nothing to do with refugees or immigrants. They were the kind of people these immigrants are trying to get away from

 

Since when have you been able to speak for the motives of thousands of "immigrants?" 

 

So they were "born in Belgium"  but while that might be true,  they would seem to be offspring of relatively recent immigrant families.

 

And that makes a good argument for retrospective law and for making it, say three generations, before incomers and their children, grandchildren etc.  are genuinely considered to be natives of their new country.

 

To even imagine first and second generation incomers to be Belgian (to the point that they would fight for the Belgians against the "land of their forefathers", which seems a sound enough measure) is nonsense, and therefore as silly as giving them a Belgian (or British) passport before then.

 

Even accepting the continuance of such low-level immigration as might be of benefit to a country or reasonably absorbed within our infrastructure,  there should always be a substantial period of qualification relating to permanent citizenship.

 

Until then citizenship should be "provisional". and "conditional" as has often been the case with employment or club memberships over the years.  

Countries need to protect themselves and while some people remain in denial or are actually representing their own agenda, things can and should be done. It would actually serve to better protect everyone - natives and incomer generations alike.   

[Nick]

Since when have you been able to speak for the motives of thousands of "immigrants?" 

 

So they were "born in Belgium"  but while that might be true,  they would seem to be offspring of relatively recent immigrant families.

 

And that makes a good argument for retrospective law and for making it, say three generations, before incomers and their children, grandchildren etc.  are genuinely considered to be natives of their new country.

 

To even imagine first and second generation incomers to be Belgian (to the point that they would fight for the Belgians against the "land of their forefathers", which seems a sound enough measure) is nonsense, and therefore as silly as giving them a Belgian (or British) passport before then.

 

Even accepting the continuance of such low-level immigration as might be of benefit to a country or reasonably absorbed within our infrastructure,  there should always be a substantial period of qualification relating to permanent citizenship.

 

Until then citizenship should be "provisional". and "conditional" as has often been the case with employment or club memberships over the years.  

Countries need to protect themselves and while some people remain in denial or are actually representing their own agenda, things can and should be done. It would actually serve to better protect everyone - natives and incomer generations alike.   

 

 

Incredible.

 

Absolutely incredible.

 

[Rincewind]

Incredible.

 

Absolutely incredible.

 

A sibling of Donald Trump?

[Buce]

Since when have you been able to speak for the motives of thousands of "immigrants?"

So they were "born in Belgium" but while that might be true, they would seem to be offspring of relatively recent immigrant families.

And that makes a good argument for retrospective law and for making it, say three generations, before incomers and their children, grandchildren etc. are genuinely considered to be natives of their new country.

To even imagine first and second generation incomers to be Belgian (to the point that they would fight for the Belgians against the "land of their forefathers", which seems a sound enough measure) is nonsense, and therefore as silly as giving them a Belgian (or British) passport before then.

Even accepting the continuance of such low-level immigration as might be of benefit to a country or reasonably absorbed within our infrastructure, there should always be a substantial period of qualification relating to permanent citizenship.

Until then citizenship should be "provisional". and "conditional" as has often been the case with employment or club memberships over the years.

Countries need to protect themselves and while some people remain in denial or are actually representing their own agenda, things can and should be done. It would actually serve to better protect everyone - natives and incomer generations alike.

So Alf Bentley and I (and I imagine many more on here) are not to be considered British? We shouldn't have the right to a passport because our forefathers (in my case my grandfather) weren't here three generations ago?

I used to think you were just a long-winded, though essentially harmless, buffoon, but you are actually seriously sinister.

Do us all a favour and take your hate-speech back to the Britain First facebook page, where it - and you - belongs.

Edited 25 March 2016 by Buce

[bovril]

So Alf Bentley and I (and I imagine many more on here) are not to be considered British? We shouldn't have the right to a passport because our forefathers (in my case my grandfather) weren't here three generations ago?

Yeah me too. The provisional citizenship thing sounds interesting though, I wonder if we'll get a badge through the post. Although my mum's family is from Sweden, which I'm going to guess sits better with thracian than some other countries might.

Hugely ironic he chooses Belgium as an example considering it's a relatively new, multi lingual nation in itself.

What a wally.

[Buce]

Yeah me too. The provisional citizenship thing sounds interesting though, I wonder if we'll get a badge through the post. Although my mum's family is from Sweden, which I'm going to guess sits better with thracian than some other countries might.

Hugely ironic he chooses Belgium as an example considering it's a relatively new, multi lingual nation in itself.

What a wally.

Yeah, I'm sure my Irish grandfather will gain me an exemption, due to the whiteness of his skin.

I wish my Leicester-born father had known he wasn't British before he fought the Nazis - maybe he could have persuaded his two brothers who died doing the same, not to bother.

Edited 25 March 2016 by Buce

[leicsmac]

Yeah, I'm sure my Irish grandfather will gain me an exemption, due to the whiteness of his skin.

I wish my Leicester-born father had known he wasn't British before he fought the Nazis - maybe he could have persuaded his two brothers who died doing the same, not to bother.

 

Ditto to my Irish-born grandfather who crossed to the UK in the early 1930's. I guess that makes me not really British either.

 

And you know what? I'm actually OK with that. As someone who barely believes in human exceptionalism any more (the potential is there, but the reality is, right now, falling rather short) the idea of the exceptionalism of a group of people based purely on either skin tone, words written in a book a good thousand years ago or real estate divided by arbitrary lines in the sand (or rivers) is still more absurd - the fact that people have used all three of those things to do both great and terrible things notwithstanding.

 

Being a sociopathic **** is independent of all of those three factors.

 

And for a little perspective: we're a group of hominids who have been on Earth for around a 1/2000th of its history, and actually only been able to record our existence for around a 1/200th of that. Add to that, we're on a planet that's one of uncountable trillions in the observable Universe, a fair few that at least have the possibility of supporting life.

 

If what some people say is true and humans are special, then we're going to have to work a damn sight harder than we are to prove it to whatever entity it needs to be proved to.

[MC Prussian]

Incredible.

 

Absolutely incredible.

 

 

I love it how Thrac puts in "three generations", as if he wanted to avoid being counted because of his own part-foreign ancestors.

 

You just can't make it up.

[Rincewind]

Yeah me too. The provisional citizenship thing sounds interesting though, I wonder if we'll get a badge through the post. Although my mum's family is from Sweden, which I'm going to guess sits better with thracian than some other countries might.

Hugely ironic he chooses Belgium as an example considering it's a relatively new, multi lingual nation in itself.

What a wally.

I think you will get a number stamped on your arm if you do not pass. One good thing though is that a few politicians would be rounded up. Maybe they could all be sent to a desert island where they could fight out their petty xenophobic squabbles to the death.