Terrorist Attacks

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not asking you to lock up every sympathiser, suspect or individual, I'm asking the authorities to lock up those who have already tried to act on these things as this man had.

 

The last paragraph is totally irrelevent, I don't expect you or your colleagues to spot every single person capable of things like this, but I do expect the ones who have already tried to join a death cult to be removed from society.

 

I was hoping you might take something from what I wrote as an overview - but never mind, its clearly a simple issue that your common sense makes you an expert on. 

 

I'm done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nick]

20 hours ago, Captain... said:

This is the problem you  can't fight fire with fire, you can't combat greed and selfishness with greed and selfishness, you can't combat intolerance with intolerance.

 

You can use what happened in Germany to attack Merkel, it is really sad the generosity and kindness shown by Germany and other European nations has been repaid with murder and rape (by a minority), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. You can't measure what good it did in the same terms. We can't measure how many lives were saved, how many women and children were protected, how many terrorists could have been created by shutting the borders and pushing them away. We will never know how much worse things could have been, only how bad things are now.

 

You can only defeat this long term with education and a will from all to finding a way for all people of all beliefs to live together, but in the short term what do you with those that are intent on destroying the way of life of others? If you attack them you just continue the cycle, imprisoning doesn't work, killing them creates martyrs, you can't ignore them, but what can you do? On a grand scale, I don't know, but on a personal level we should not be spreading hate and fear, demonising innocent people for their beliefs and blaming people for doing the right thing. We should look to help in any way we can, whether that is donating money or time or standing up to intolerance when you see it or working with our local communities. If this is the greatest threat to humanity since the Nazis, then we probably could and should be doing more (me included).

 

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

I was hoping you might take something from what I wrote as an overview - but never mind, its clearly a simple issue that your common sense makes you an expert on. 

 

I'm done.

Stop with these silly exaggerations everytime someone holds a different opinion to you, I've never claimed to be an expert in this and never will.

 

I'm aware of your last paragraph, you've mentioned things that enough over the years, of course no one is ever going to blame anyone if a lone wolf just decides to launch an attack, I don't expect anyone to be a genius, it's almost impossible to get inside the head of somebody and I or no one else on this thread appears to have claimed they could, you wrote it as you were trying to cause a diversion from the issues we are actually talking about here which is why we are still allowing people we know are capable and willing of mass murder to be running around in our communities.

 

The case we are talking about is now based on fact, it's a man who tried to get into Syria to fight for IS three times, he isn't someone who slipped under the radar, he isn't someone with mental issues who we failed to spot, we caught him on three occasions trying to join a death cult and the response to this was to put a tag on his leg and send him back to his parents with an incredible stupulation that he was allowed to take it off and wander around for a few hours a day, the authorities need to be held accountable for this, the death of that priest is on their hands as much as the killer.

Edited 27 July 2016 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

I missed that post from Captain, my word that really is something else, basically saying no matter how much this fcuks up, it was still right to do because we'll never know just how wrong it might have gone.

 

Think I'll give that a go with Brexit

 

Edited 27 July 2016 by MattP

[purpleronnie]

20 hours ago, Captain... said:

This is the problem you  can't fight fire with fire, you can't combat greed and selfishness with greed and selfishness, you can't combat intolerance with intolerance.

 

You can use what happened in Germany to attack Merkel, it is really sad the generosity and kindness shown by Germany and other European nations has been repaid with murder and rape (by a minority), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. You can't measure what good it did in the same terms. We can't measure how many lives were saved, how many women and children were protected, how many terrorists could have been created by shutting the borders and pushing them away. We will never know how much worse things could have been, only how bad things are now.

 

You can only defeat this long term with education and a will from all to finding a way for all people of all beliefs to live together, but in the short term what do you with those that are intent on destroying the way of life of others? If you attack them you just continue the cycle, imprisoning doesn't work, killing them creates martyrs, you can't ignore them, but what can you do? On a grand scale, I don't know, but on a personal level we should not be spreading hate and fear, demonising innocent people for their beliefs and blaming people for doing the right thing. We should look to help in any way we can, whether that is donating money or time or standing up to intolerance when you see it or working with our local communities. If this is the greatest threat to humanity since the Nazis, then we probably could and should be doing more (me included).

Yep, the terrorists want to undermind our society and erode our human rights, amazingly some of those on the right seemingly want this also to try and solve the terrorist problem, we need more democracy not less.  We can't close down our open society because that's excatly what ISIS want.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Yep, the terrorists want to undermind our society and erode our human rights, amazingly some of those on the right seemingly want this also to try and solve the terrorist problem, we need more democracy not less.  We can't close down our open society because that's excatly what ISIS want.

This is almost becoming a cliche now, how do you know ISIS wants this? I've never heard of an attack, threat or any IS propaganda mention erosion of human rights or destroying an open society as any sort of aspiration of the caliphate, to be honest it seems absolutely bizarre that they would want that given they can actually use these things to attack us.

 

People telling us this but I don't actually see any evidence? I even read Dabiq a few months ago and there was no mention in it in there either.

 

I very doubt anybody at the top of the ISIS structure could give a remote shit about European Human Rights Laws to be honest. Though if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I'm open.

Edited 27 July 2016 by MattP

[purpleronnie]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is almost becoming a cliche now, how do you know ISIS wants this? I've never heard of an attack, threat or any IS propaganda mention erosion of human rights or destroying an open society as any sort of aspiration of the caliphate, to be honest it seems absolutely bizarre that they would want that given they can actually use these things to attack us.

 

People telling us this but I don't actually see any evidence? I even read Dabiq a few months ago and there was no mention in it in there either.

 

I very doubt anybody at the top of the ISIS structure could give a remote shit about European Human Rights Laws to be honest. Though if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I'm open.

Terrorism is in itself is an ideological and politically motivated assault on our democratic rights and freedoms.

 

The essential strategy in countering the extremism we have thesedays that breeds the terrorism that's happening is to win the contest of ideas, so we have to defend the basic human rights and freedoms which form our democracy and that make our societies worth protecting.

[Guest]

We could go the Turkish route and just shoot everyone who MAY not agree with us.

 

At least we could then reduce the amount wasted on prisons and "reform".

 

where's the post that equates MattP to Erdogan?

Edited 27 July 2016 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Terrorism is in itself is an ideological and politically motivated assault on our democratic rights and freedoms.

 

The essential strategy in countering the extremism we have thesedays that breeds the terrorism that's happening is to win the contest of ideas, so we have to defend the basic human rights and freedoms which form our democracy and that make our societies worth protecting.

As I said, it's just a cliche used that IS wants to destroy our Human Rights and "our way of life" - they are an Islamist terrorist group, there only intention is the caliphate and to cause as much death and destruction as they possibly can to try and terrify us into making sure they can achieve the goals they have set.

 

They won't be jumping up and down if we decided to introduce I.D cards or something like we did in WW2, I doubt they would give a shit.

[Manwell Pablo]

22 minutes ago, FIF said:

We could go the Turkish route and just shoot everyone who MAY not agree with us.

 

At least we could then reduce the amount wasted on prisons and "reform".

 

where's the post that equates MattP to Erdogan?

I dunno why any of you are arguing with him to be honest.

 

You can disagree with him on the border spectrum but it's pretty clear in this particular case there has been a rather sever failure. If someone tries to leave a safe (well, safeish) country to go to a warzone to fight for their supposed cause it's pretty clear they feel quite strongly about it. And we all know what people who feel strongly about fighting for ISIS are capable of, he shouldn't of been out free. 

[Guest]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

I dunno why any of you are arguing with him to be honest.

 

You can disagree with him on the border spectrum but it's pretty clear in this particular case there has been a rather sever failure. If someone tries to leave a safe (well, safeish) country to go to a warzone to fight for their supposed cause it's pretty clear they feel quite strongly about it. And we all know what people who feel strongly about fighting for ISIS are capable of, he shouldn't of been out free. 

But we don't arrest and put people away simply because they MAY do something. 

 

As for people going to Syria I understand the argument, however if they are British nationals (with no other nationality) I don't believe that Britain can refuse them re-entry.

[Captain...]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

I missed that post from Captain, my word that really is something else, basically saying no matter how much this fcuks up, it was still right to do because we'll never know just how wrong it might have gone.

 

Think I'll give that a go with Brexit

 

 

That isn't actually what I said. I think you have your looney left filter turned up too high again. It is easy to criticise, and I did at the time, asylum seekers should not have been encouraged to bypass official channels and processing and should not have been encouraged to make dangerous crossings. Regardless there was a huge number of unofficial asylum seekers flowing into Europe and something needed to be done. If they hadn't been welcomed by Germany and other countries we do not know what kind of humanitarian disaster could have happened. We saw enough images of borders being closed refugees being attacked and attacking. The loss of life could have been catastrophic and if other countries (UK being one of them) had done more to help then there may not have been so many in Germany. When there are desperate people in need of help you hope that someone helps. Was it the absolute right thing to do? I don't know but something had to be done to prevent a disaster.

 

seemingly the reason that this attacker was able to commit this atrocity was because of a monumentally stupid decision to give someone determined to join IS any sort of freedom to commit a terrorist act. It was not the welcoming of refugees that was the big failing, it was not a failing to identify an IS supporter, but it was failing to neutralise the threat.

 

I hope that the other people on their list are looked at more closely.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

That isn't actually what I said. I think you have your looney left filter turned up too high again. It is easy to criticise, and I did at the time, asylum seekers should not have been encouraged to bypass official channels and processing and should not have been encouraged to make dangerous crossings. Regardless there was a huge number of unofficial asylum seekers flowing into Europe and something needed to be done. If they hadn't been welcomed by Germany and other countries we do not know what kind of humanitarian disaster could have happened. We saw enough images of borders being closed refugees being attacked and attacking. The loss of life could have been catastrophic and if other countries (UK being one of them) had done more to help then there may not have been so many in Germany. When there are desperate people in need of help you hope that someone helps. Was it the absolute right thing to do? I don't know but something had to be done to prevent a disaster.

 

seemingly the reason that this attacker was able to commit this atrocity was because of a monumentally stupid decision to give someone determined to join IS any sort of freedom to commit a terrorist act. It was not the welcoming of refugees that was the big failing, it was not a failing to identify an IS supporter, but it was failing to neutralise the threat.

 

I hope that the other people on their list are looked at more closely.

Everything you say makes sense but after this final line what is to be done? There are thousands of these people, are they to be imprisoned without actually having done anything criminal or are they to be followed 24/7 meaning at least 3 (probably more) security personnel for each one?

[Captain...]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

As I said, it's just a cliche used that IS wants to destroy our Human Rights and "our way of life" - they are an Islamist terrorist group, there only intention is the caliphate and to cause as much death and destruction as they possibly can to try and terrify us into making sure they can achieve the goals they have set.

 

They won't be jumping up and down if we decided to introduce I.D cards or something like we did in WW2, I doubt they would give a shit.

Do they still want a holy war in Syria? I'm still of the opinion we should just give them what they want if it meant eradicating this ridiculous death cult. From the photos I saw today most ofSyria is just rubble anyway.

 

As for destroying our way of life, whether it is their aim or not a result of these attacks is to spread fear and hatred and it just serves to help their cause. The more division and distrust between citizens and asylum seekers, between Muslims and non Muslims and between normal Muslims and extremists makes it easier for them to recruit and radicalise people.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

Do they still want a holy war in Syria? I'm still of the opinion we should just give them what they want if it meant eradicating this ridiculous death cult. From the photos I saw today most ofSyria is just rubble anyway.

 

As for destroying our way of life, whether it is their aim or not a result of these attacks is to spread fear and hatred and it just serves to help their cause. The more division and distrust between citizens and asylum seekers, between Muslims and non Muslims and between normal Muslims and extremists makes it easier for them to recruit and radicalise people.

I'm guessing your not a Syrian christian, shi'ite, alawite , Jazidi  or gay?

[Guest MattP]

Pretty Powerful

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Do they still want a holy war in Syria? I'm still of the opinion we should just give them what they want if it meant eradicating this ridiculous death cult. From the photos I saw today most ofSyria is just rubble anyway.

This will probably be the end game anyway, it's just when it happens.

 

In the mean time though we certainly should just allow anyone who wants to go and fight in it, at least then they are actually fighting against the regime and we are doing something about them, it's their choice and it's far better they are out there than sat at home here planning to chop the heads of innocent people.

[Manwell Pablo]

30 minutes ago, FIF said:

But we don't arrest and put people away simply because they MAY do something. 

 

As for people going to Syria I understand the argument, however if they are British nationals (with no other nationality) I don't believe that Britain can refuse them re-entry.

 

It might just be me but I think attempting to enter Syria in order to fight for ISIS IS doing something wrong. 

 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It might just be me but I think attempting to enter Syria in order to fight for ISIS IS doing something wrong. 

 

 

It might be "wrong" but is it criminal in the UK?

[Manwell Pablo]

6 minutes ago, FIF said:

It might be "wrong" but is it criminal in the UK?

It should be. That's the point.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

It should be. That's the point.

I can understand that.

 

But what is the burden of proof?

 

That they caught a plane out of the country to a country somewhere near Syria?

That someone like them has been seen shooting someone in Syria?

 

There are millions of things that should be but to make a criminal law you have to be able to prove the person did it otherwise there's no point.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

I can understand that.

 

But what is the burden of proof?

 

That they caught a plane out of the country to a country somewhere near Syria?

That someone like them has been seen shooting someone in Syria?

 

There are millions of things that should be but to make a criminal law you have to be able to prove the person did it otherwise there's no point.

It's like any crime isn't it. 

 

How it's proven is not my beef and I accept it'd have to be proven like any other crime but it should be illegal. In fact it is illegal (high treason) but that law has not been enforced for decades.

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, Captain... said:

This is the problem you  can't fight fire with fire, you can't combat greed and selfishness with greed and selfishness, you can't combat intolerance with intolerance.

 

You can use what happened in Germany to attack Merkel, it is really sad the generosity and kindness shown by Germany and other European nations has been repaid with murder and rape (by a minority), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. You can't measure what good it did in the same terms. We can't measure how many lives were saved, how many women and children were protected, how many terrorists could have been created by shutting the borders and pushing them away. We will never know how much worse things could have been, only how bad things are now.

 

You can only defeat this long term with education and a will from all to finding a way for all people of all beliefs to live together, but in the short term what do you with those that are intent on destroying the way of life of others? If you attack them you just continue the cycle, imprisoning doesn't work, killing them creates martyrs, you can't ignore them, but what can you do? On a grand scale, I don't know, but on a personal level we should not be spreading hate and fear, demonising innocent people for their beliefs and blaming people for doing the right thing. We should look to help in any way we can, whether that is donating money or time or standing up to intolerance when you see it or working with our local communities. If this is the greatest threat to humanity since the Nazis, then we probably could and should be doing more (me included).

 

There are many peaceful things you can do to begin to combat terrorism. Not that I'd expect the liberal theorists, excuse-makers and human rights defenders on here to agree with them.

 

But they've had plenty of time to see their "love potion" politics reap rewards and they haven't, in fact quite the contrary to such a degree that even I'm surprised, and I wouldn't have let it happen in the first place.

 

Well, now it's time to act more practically and realistically, starting with a 5-10-point plan to restore this country to being the comparatively harmonious place to live in that it once used to be.

 

Current law-biding incomers would have nothing to fear. In fact, in time, they themselves might like the place better. Especially those who came here in the first place to get away from extremism and to bring their kids up in a happy environment. 

 

But the changes would be both radical and uncompromising in their commitment to the safety of people living here and the inclusiveness of our society within the terms of British law and British principles which would be emphasised time and again.

 

Britain would remain Britain as surely as Brexit would remain Brexit - it would not become a clone of mother-mutliculture. 

Yet it would embrace other cultures - but with a smile instead of a snarl.        

 

 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

apologies FIF - quoted the wrong thing somehow.

So Tony is it a 5 or a 10 point plan?

 

What are the radical and uncompromising points? 

 

Or is this another flowery rhetoric with no substance Mr. Trump?

Edited 27 July 2016 by Nick

[Buce]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

It might be "wrong" but is it criminal in the UK?

Yes.