Manchester Arena blast

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You are overreacting, these people want us to remove our freedoms and liberties. This apart from being incredibly dangerous, is playing right into their hands.

I am not they need eradicating.

 

They are already doing this though by being here amongst us, in places we don't know killing our children.

 

People are scared to go shopping, to go to concerts, to go to work, some people may go and not return home some day. Its happening more and more across Europe and can not be tolerated any longer. More has to be done.

 

Its killing our western civil liberties living in the fear that one day we may go out to have fun and never come back.

 

We should be able to go and sit outside a bar having a drink without the threat of some lowlife jihadi **** coming past and shooting at us, we should be able to go to a concert with our children and come home to bed safely at night.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The current laws do not work. Jailing them does nothing, in fact many are radicalised (further) in prison.

 

Why do these idiots have a sense of injustice in their community? we have given them freedom and opportunity, its their own choice if they want to bury themselves in a nonsensical belief, what they must know is that in taking that path they will not be tolerated, I would think that would be  quite a good deterrent.

 

We can not at the moment use intelligence to convict them in court even if we have a pretty good idea they are up to no good, something needs to change in that respect. Putting them in prison is just a waste of resources they must be properly dealt with, these people are not humans they are vermin.

 

Anyone travelling to ISIS countries not in the name of aid should never be allowed to return to this country and citizenship should be stripped.

So we need to do something in prisons to stop that radicalisation happening.

 

The stripping citizenship thing is an interesting question.  Are we not just passing our problem citizens to other countries?

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am not they need eradicating.

 

They are already doing this though by being here amongst us, in places we don't know killing our children.

 

People are scared to go shopping, to go to concerts, to go to work, some people may go and not return home some day. Its happening more and more across Europe and can not be tolerated any longer. More has to be done.

 

Its killing our western civil liberties living in the fear that one day we may go out to have fun and never come back.

 

We should be able to go and sit outside a bar having a drink without the threat of some lowlife jihadi **** coming past and shooting at us, we should be able to go to a concert with our children and come home to bed safely at night.

Would you be happy to replace this with sending our kids off to other nations to fight wars?  This would be the end result if you start the ethnic cleansing of the country, which is pretty much where your thinking leads.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

So we need to do something in prisons to stop that radicalisation happening.

 

The stripping citizenship thing is an interesting question.  Are we not just passing our problem citizens to other countries?

Stop the preachers from being in prison by letting them hang is my solution but I appreciate most unpopular!

 

If the Jihadi think that Syria/Iraq is so fantastic and their homeland I am sure they can apply there! My preferred option is to get rid of them completely but again, this is often unpopular but realistically the only way to stop them is to get rid of them.

[Rincewind]

Do you remember the alien invasion films of the fifties? Body Snatchers Invasion from Mars etc? Well they were parodies of what was going on in America at the time. The communist trials and telling the public that they wanted to take over our lives. Notice any similarities?

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We need to remove the people preaching hate, the country is too soft on the scum why do people keep making excuses for them (oh he had a hard life blah blah blah, no he was just a religious **** taught bollocks by another religious **** both of whom need removing from the country).

Even if you could just start throwing people out (which you can't) who on earth would take them? Besides that isn't what we do in this country, we work by the rule of law, always have and always will.

 

The problem has been enforcement, we already have laws against preaching hate but we still had people like Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza shouting on the corner of Hyde Park, it's alright dragging up Tommy Robinson from the EDL to face a jury but you have to do it to everyone. The government over the last 20 years has been totally impotent on extremist preachers and we are now paying for that, find me the perpetrator of an Islamist attack in Europe and you will soon find a radical mosque they were spending a lot of time in.

 

There was an article in the Times last year that showed places around Britain and where jihadis had come from who had travelled to Syria, South Manchester had a part of it that had a two mile radius where 12 men had either died or been imprisoned who have died fighting for IS, that can't be a co-incedence, somewhere there is a place where an extremist has been allowed to poison young, unstable minds. I'm sure we'll soon find out that this guy attended it as well.

 

We need to start enforcing the law properly on everyone, not changing it to punish everyone equally.

 

This is a good read from Iain Dale about the rise of literature, funding and the increase of the more radical side brand of Islam in British mosques  -  http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/06/28/why-wahhabi-salafist-mosques-should-be-banned-from-receiving-foreign-funding

 

Quote

Back in 2007, of the 1528 mosques in Britain only 68 adhered to salafism or wahhabism. That figure has risen by 20% in the last eight years to around 1850 nowadays. Around 110 are thought to be under Wahhabi/Salafi control, and receiving funding from Saudi or allied sources.

 

We would never allow the Ku Klux Klan to fund and run a church in Britain so why do we allow Salafist to do the same with mosques? I'm starting to get the feeling we are so far in bed with the Saudi's now we can't stop it.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Would you be happy to replace this with sending our kids off to other nations to fight wars?  This would be the end result if you start the ethnic cleansing of the country, which is pretty much where your thinking leads.

Why would is cause wars?

 

I am suggesting removing (a small number of people) people who want to bring terror and harm to our country and our children, they deserve it. They have been given every opportunity to integrate with society they haven't, that is their choice their doing they need consequences and they need to be clear.

 

Everyone is welcome here, to contribute to our society , our culture and our diversity, there are many fantastic examples where a huge majority of the population in the UK integrate peacefully and successfully respecting each other. What we don't want is people who challenge our values and destroy our freedom to live our lives.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even if you could just start throwing people out (which you can't) who on earth would take them? Besides that isn't what we do in this country, we work by the rule of law, always have and always will.

 

 

We need to change the laws, sometimes the law is an ass as they say. Shove them on a plane to the fantastic Syrian caphiliate homeland they fantasise about in Raqqa, with any luck they will be blown out the sky by their own kind.

 

We are failing our own citizens here. Citizens who now have to live with a critical threat of terror in their own country.

[yorkie1999]

24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I agree, and we should no doubt provide more resources to the intelligence services to gather that evidence needed to prosecute, but we still need to have evidence that stands in a court of law.

The police don't need hard evidence to interrogate someone, just reasonable suspicion. I'm sure they'd be able to tell in an interview if someone had been radicalized.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We need to change the laws, sometimes the law is an ass as they say. Shove them on a plane to the fantastic Syrian caphiliate homeland they fantasise about in Raqqa, with any look they will be blown out the sky by their own kind.

And you think the Syrian government will just say "Yeah, no problem, we'll take the fighters who want to engage in war with us, just drop them into Damascus tomorrow"

 

We certainly shouldn't have allowed those who had fought in Syria to come back and I was raging at the time when people were saying things like "it's better to keep an eye on them here" but we've done it now, we need to do many things to tackle this, shutting down mosques who allow extremists to preach, ending Saudi funding of Islamic literature coming into the country and making sure young people in prisons are isolated from already convicted jihadis just for starters.

 

But none of them involve removing people from the country, we're a democratic nation, not some terrorist organisation like the IRA who exile people they don't like.

 

 

[Rincewind]

even then it will just be suspicion..

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

And you think the Syrian government will just say "Yeah, no problem, we'll take the fighters who want to engage in war with us, just drop them into Damascus tomorrow"

 

We certainly shouldn't have allowed those who had fought in Syria to come back and I was raging at the time when people were saying things like "it's better to keep an eye on them here" but we've done it now, we need to do many things to tackle this, shutting down mosques who allow extremists to preach, ending Saudi funding of Islamic literature coming into the country and making sure young people in prisons are isolated from already convicted jihadis just for starters.

 

But none of them involve removing people from the country, we're a democratic nation, not some terrorist organisation like the IRA who exile people they don't like.

 

 

I believe Raqqa is the home of ISIS and a scumbag stronghold they should be happy there in the homeland, we can drop them there just send them on an old BA jet as I am sure their own kind wont try and blow that out of the sky.

 

We maybe a democratic country, but these vermin are taking the piss out of our liberal values to live here and kill us. We have to adapt otherwise they will win, they will wipe us out.

 

Sending them to prison for a few years will never reform them, what is the point of keeping them? unless it is in a dungeon at some former castle letting them rot.

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

even then it will just be suspicion..

That's right, but if you know you are being watched and under the threat of being shot for terrorism, you're not going to walk round with a rucksack full of explosives are you. 

[Ashley]

@Voll Blau @Jon the Hat one of the tweets.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I believe Raqqa is the home of ISIS and a scumbag stronghold they should be happy there in the homeland, we can drop them there just send them on an old BA jet as I am sure their own kind wont try and blow that out of the sky.

 

We maybe a democratic country, but these vermin are taking the piss out of our liberal values to live here and kill us. We have to adapt otherwise they will win, they will wipe us out.

Even if you wanted to do this, how would we get a British Jet into Raqqa to land and drop them off?

 

We would also then be a country under international law whose government has officially supplied troops to Islamic State, a group that enslaves, kills and tortures anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation of Islam, do you want to explain that one away at the UN?

 

I'm sure we (with deep regret) will adapt or change some of our laws and liberties for a while (as we had to in WW2) - but doing this isn't one of them.

[stripeyfox]

5 minutes ago, Ashley said:

@Voll Blau @Jon the Hat one of the tweets.

Their grammar is soooooo bad!
 

[Guest MattP]

Came across this as well today, shows the narrative some of the media are absolutely determined to follow in response to these attacks, scary.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Even if you wanted to do this, how would we get a British Jet into Raqqa to land and drop them off?

 

We would also then be a country under international law whose government has officially supplied troops to Islamic State, a group that enslaves, kills and tortures anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation if Islam, do you want to explain that one away

 

I'm sure we (with deep regret) will adapt or change some of our laws and liberties for a while (as we had to in WW2) - but doing this isn't one of them.

Obviously it was said it jest and will never actually happen for all kinds of reasons, my preference would be again to let them rot or hang but none of them will ever happen.

 

We will continue to bow down to the terrorist, let them do as they wish, some will carry out their killings, some will be caught. The rest of us will just have to live in fear knowing that we or our loved ones could one day not return home because the law is not protecting British Citizens going about their everyday lives.

 

Everytime we allow this to happen they win.

[Ashley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Came across this as well today, shows the narrative some of the media are absolutely determined to follow in response to these attacks, scary.

 

Muslim taxi driver? He's sikh for **** sake how could they get it so wrong?

[Rincewind]

Two different incidents.Two different pics of taxis. And it does say Sikh taxi driver. read again.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Muslim taxi driver? He's sikh for **** sake how could they get it so wrong?

Because they wanted to get it wrong.

 

Screw the guy and his good deed, far more likes and retweets if it's a Muslim doing to counter the Islamist terror attack.

 

Expect it from a virtue signalling twenty-something on social media but not from a multi-national company.

[Ashley]

7 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Two different incidents.Two different pics of taxis. And it does say Sikh taxi driver. read again.

Same incident. Cosmopolitan. Read it again. 

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Because they wanted to get it wrong.

 

Screw the guy and his good deed, far more likes and retweets if it's a Muslim doing to counter the Islamist terror attack.

 

Expect it from a virtue signalling twenty-something on social media but not from a multi-national company.

...and even more retweets of people pointing out they got it wrong.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Two different incidents.Two different pics of taxis. And it does say Sikh taxi driver. read again.

What are you actually looking at?

 

There is only one story printed and that is quite clearly the same car in both pictures. 

 

It also doesn't say Sikh taxi driver.

[Redouane]

So disgusting how they are willing to stoop so low to target young boys and girls. It's already disgusting enough to target civilians, but to target young teens? Disgusting.