Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

fly_agaric

BoatMad wrote: »

I would prefer to place my society and myself in harms way , then to submit to further erosions of civil liberty

If we have to die for our freedoms, so be it, we died for them before

Eroding civil liberties in an inane attempt to buy security is the sign of a collapsing society where fear rules and the innocent are usually the next to be persecuted ( internment etc )

Very brave of you but I think realistically everyone has their limit, even if you haven't reached it. I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

BoatMad

fly_agaric wrote: »

Very brave of you but I think realistically everyone has their limit, even if you haven't reached it. I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

NO , there would not be such a situation , I personally would prefer that innocents are killed in the defence of civil liberties then to see them eroded by those in power that seek to use fear to invoke reductions in civil liberties, and in most cases such liberties are lost forever

our freedoms were hard fought for, through revolutions, wars of independence, conflicts, often in the face of huge odds and sophisticated opponents. I would not see them traded for any " security "

BoatMad

pjohnson wrote: »

So you wouldn't mind your child dying thanks to one of that lot since you can talk about a strong society and solid civil liberties? That whole "happy to die" thing is quite similar to the ilk you are tryna protect from justice so that makes sense I guess.

I am fully behind the legitimate use of the legal criminal and justice system to identify, prove and place before the criminal justice to determine their fate and its so determined to be guilty to be incarcerated for as long as is deemed appropriate.

The state must never descend to the level of criminality to prosecute its opponents, that road leads to the destruction of civil society

So you wouldn't mind your child dying

straw man argument.

BoatMad

I'm sure there would come a level of violence & threat where you'd be begging for a Stasi, internment without trial etc to save you! Principles are no good when you're dead anyway.

A reading of the interwar history of the Weimar republic, will no doubt make you aware of the perils of turning to the state and handing it massive powers in order to try and make you feel " safe "

GT_TDI_150

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

To those that say that they dont agree that with arresting or interogating or detaining people that are found to be watching ISIS propaganda and visit jihad related forums/sites('could be a journalist') and travel(led) to syria('could be a doctor or healthcare volunteer') and maý have ties to an ISIS recruiter ('could be childhood friend') and have been reported by family and friend for radical view/ comments, are in possession of perroxide (could be a trainie hairdresser)..

At what point do you think this person can be questioned/arrested/held?

Whèn the bomb has gone off?

There are plausable explanations for each item listed above but when some one ticks multiple boxes they become a problem... also some one googling 'what is ISIS' is miles apart from 'how do i join ISIS'. Or loòking on wikipedia for jihad vs debating the merit of jehad on forums'

Dont think ive seen it addressed yet.

So a search history full of ISIS videos
Signed up through several jihadi sites
2 recent 7day trips to Mossul
The local imhan has expressed concern on a persons view
Bought 5 gallons of peroxide
Contact with other perzons monitored as potential extremists
The person is not a journalist or student or a hairdresser...

People are good to let him be and monitor him a bit more?

Really?

BoatMad

Originally Posted by GT_TDI_150
To those that say that they dont agree that with arresting or interogating or detaining people that are found to be watching ISIS propaganda and visit jihad related forums/sites('could be a journalist') and travel(led) to syria('could be a doctor or healthcare volunteer') and ma? have ties to an ISIS recruiter ('could be childhood friend') and have been reported by family and friend for radical view/ comments, are in possession of perroxide (could be a trainie hairdresser)..

At what point do you think this person can be questioned/arrested/held?

Wh?n the bomb has gone off?

There are plausable explanations for each item listed above but when some one ticks multiple boxes they become a problem... also some one googling 'what is ISIS' is miles apart from 'how do i join ISIS'. Or lo?king on wikipedia for jihad vs debating the merit of jehad on forums'

The criminal justice system requires evidence of the act, not merely " thinking about it "

certainly people can be interviewed etc, assuming they have appropriate legal protection and the presence of independent legal council.

going any further is simply going to lead to persecution of innocents and the rise of the police state ( if it isnt here already )

GT_TDI_150

BoatMad wrote: »

[QUOTE:Originally Posted by GT_TDI_150]
To those that say that they dont agree that with arresting or interogating or detaining people that are found to be watching ISIS propaganda and visit jihad related forums/sites('could be a journalist') and travel(led) to syria('could be a doctor or healthcare volunteer') and ma? have ties to an ISIS recruiter ('could be childhood friend') and have been reported by family and friend for radical view/ comments, are in possession of perroxide (could be a trainie hairdresser)..

At what point do you think this person can be questioned/arrested/held?

Wh?n the bomb has gone off?

There are plausable explanations for each item listed above but when some one ticks multiple boxes they become a problem... also some one googling 'what is ISIS' is miles apart from 'how do i join ISIS'. Or lo?king on wikipedia for jihad vs debating the merit of jehad on forums'[/ QUOTE]

The criminal justice system requires evidence of the act, not merely " thinking about it "

certainly people can be interviewed etc, assuming they have appropriate legal protection and the presence of independent legal council.

going any further is simply going to lead to persecution of innocents and the rise of the police state ( if it isnt here already )

So why is there such a thing as chemical castration?

When an offender has served their time the are starting with a clean slate...

Stopping them from acting on urges again presumes them guilty of future offences because they might think of doing it...

Unfortunatly when a jihadi extremist thinks about bombing a place, we cant prevent him from doing it a second time

BoatMad

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

So why is there such a thing as chemical castration?

When an offender has served their time the are starting with a clean slate...

Stopping them from acting on urges again presumes them guilty of future offences because they might think of doing it...

Unfortunatly when a jihadi extremist thinks about bombing a place, we cant prevent him from doing it a second time

As far as Im aware forced chemical castration is only practised in a handful of countries. It is an abhorrent concept in my opinion and has no place in a civil society . IN that regards I view the death penalty the same way

Stopping them from acting on urges again presumes them guilty of future offences because they might think of doing it...

almost the definition of " thought crime" and the very idea should be again abhorrent to any decent civil society.

Unfortunatly when a jihadi extremist thinks about bombing a place, we cant prevent him from doing it a second time

You seem completely unable to fathom that if we sought to fix the underlying issues , then ,maybe we'd have no Jihadis in the first place

GT_TDI_150

BoatMad wrote: »

As far as Im aware forced chemical castration is only practised in a handful of countries. It is an abhorrent concept in my opinion and has no place in a civil society . IN that regards I view the death penalty the same way



almost the definition of " thought crime" and the very idea should be again abhorrent to any decent civil society.




You seem completely unable to fathom that if we sought to fix the underlying issues , then ,maybe we'd have no Jihadis in the first place

You seem to think that if the west werent bombing in the ME that there would be no muslim extremists

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

I would prefer to place my society and myself in harms way , then to submit to further erosions of civil liberty

If we have to die for our freedoms, so be it, we died for them before

Eroding civil liberties in an inane attempt to buy security is the sign of a collapsing society where fear rules and the innocent are usually the next to be persecuted ( internment etc )

Thanks but no thank s

But what gives you the right to make those decisions for others? I'm willing to bet that bereaved or injured people in Manchester, and other places, would be very, very happy to give unfettered access to their phones, computers and homes, if it would prevent other people suffering the same fate.

There are clear and obvious risks attached to the erosion of civil liberties. Risks that I would normally not consider vaguely acceptable.

But the present situation is not acceptable, either.

So, I think the discussion needs to be had.

How can we adequately monitor ISIS internet activity, while preserving our freedoms?

BoatMad

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

You seem to think that if the west werent bombing in the ME that there would be no muslim extremists

ask yourself when Jihadi style attacks came to public prominence in the West. I dont seem to remember them bombing Europe in the 80s

GT_TDI_150

The problem for the extremists is that they dont agree with our way of living yet chose to live here and feel like social oucasts within their own erhnic community(as they cant accept that the majority do settle and adjust) and the wider community as they live in contradiction to their strong (warped) believes.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

But what gives you the right to make those decisions for others? I'm willing to bet that bereaved or injured people in Manchester, and other places, would be very, very happy to give unfettered access to their phones, computers and homes, if it would prevent other people suffering the same fate.

There are clear and obvious risks attached to the erosion of civil liberties. Risks that I would normally not consider vaguely acceptable.

But the present situation is not acceptable, either.

So, I think the discussion needs to be had.

How can we adequately monitor ISIS internet activity, while preserving our freedoms?

I cant only give you my perspective , I cannot speak for anyone else. I can certainly argue my point.

How can we adequately monitor ISIS internet activity, while preserving our freedoms?

Indeed , I accept it is a challenge, But I would suggest that perhaps, rather like Northern Ireland, where a security oriented solution was ultimately deemed unworkable, we look at the cause of Islamic radicalism and seek to ameliorate that

Widdershins

I'm not sure a trainee hairdresser would have five gallons of peroxide, and what they did have probably wouldn't be particularly strong peroxide, either. A hair salon might, but not one individual. At a guess.

BoatMad

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we are told, only 0.001% of the population are involved in terrorism, be it directly or majorly indirectly.

there is no logic on the planet that should or could accept the current threats to every innocent person in the world at risk of upsetting that 0.001%.

you call it freedom, i call it standing up to terrorism and keeping our people and children safe.

0.001% nonsense ,

i call it standing up to terrorism and keeping our people and children safe

perhaps , just like NI, keeping our children safe , meant we " talk to terrorists " or at the very least stop bombing the sh1t out of their country and killing thousands of innocents including children, or have you had your head in the sand since " Desert storm"

of course " our" children " are obviously more valuable then " their" children !!!

Help!!!!

BoatMad wrote: »

0.001% nonsense ,



perhaps , just like NI, keeping our children safe , meant we " talk to terrorists " or at the very least stop bombing the sh1t out of their country and killing thousands of innocents including children, or have you had your head in the sand since " Desert storm"

of course " our" children " are obviously more valuable then " their" children !!!

But no one has been bombing the sh1t out of the UK as many on here keep saying the people committing these atrocities are European born

BoatMad

Help!!!! wrote: »

But no one has been bombing the sh1t out of the UK as many on here keep saying the people committing these atrocities are European born

yes but radicalised by the conflict in the ME

its not like they are Latvians bombing the UK, They are people with strong cultural links to the ME

rather like an PIRA from Kerry bombing Londin etc. Its the radicalisation thats the issue , not where he or she was born

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

I cant only give you my perspective , I cannot speak for anyone else. I can certainly argue my point.



Indeed , I accept it is a challenge, But I would suggest that perhaps, rather like Northern Ireland, where a security oriented solution was ultimately deemed unworkable, we look at the cause of Islamic radicalism and seek to ameliorate that

Who's "We"?

Because I don't support bombing campaigns in the Middle East, but I'm not convinced that they would make any difference to ISIS support if they stopped in the morning.

Neither am I convinced that they are the sole motivation for new recruits.

Think about it. There seems to be a pattern.

Again, and again, we see young men, often with a criminal history, or history of drug use.

They experience "conversion", but never to any moderate faith, always an extreme one. And another suicide bomber is created.

That being the case, it's obvious that disaffected young men are being targeted for recruitment, and if it wasn't bombs in the middle east that was used for motivation, it would be something else.

That might be passages from the Koran, or historical wrongs - or, basically, whatever the recruiter could find that resonated with the young man in question.

Even if the motivation is bombing the M.E (and I'm sure it is, some of the time anyway!) - we can't undo the bombs that have already fallen.

We can't rewrite History.

Hell, I've read posts on this forum condemning Catholics for the crusades, and the posts weren't written by Muslims, or Arabs - and modern Catholics are certainly not responsible for the Crusades.

All that is before we even get around to discussing the level of knowledge people really have about what happens in these conflicts, and how much power people really have to affect how their Governments behave, and the answer to both is very little, tbh.

So, we're back to, "Do we sit and do nothing, or do we try to find a solution?"

Because hand wringing is going to achieve SFA, no matter how much we dislike the choices made by various Governments, or how little we can trust them, for that matter!

GT_TDI_150

Help!!!! wrote: »

But no one has been bombing the sh1t out of the UK as many on here keep saying the people committing these atrocities are European born

Europe born but identify as libians or syrian or morrocan or turks or ..

Some of these lads are 2 or even 3rd generation **insert european counrty** but still identify as soley being from the country their (grand) parent hailed from...

The moderate and integrated muslims refer to themselves as for example belgiuan or belgian morrocan òr french tunisian...

Those that refuse to recognise they have a connecgion with their birth country are the problems...

BoatMad

Because I don't support bombing campaigns in the Middle East, but I'm not convinced that they would make any difference to ISIS support if they stopped in the morning.

perhaps its too late, but the fact remains, we( the collective West ) are being targeted because of our recent and continuing involvement in the ME , and involvement that included and illegal invasion, the destabilisation of nation states, the arming and fermenting of revolution and the involved indiscriminate bombing and the death and maiming of thousands of innocents

This isnt hand wringing , this is the reality

Again, and again, we see young men, often with a criminal history, or history of drug use.

They experience "conversion", but never to any moderate faith, always an extreme one. And another suicide bomber is created.

anyone who is prepared to kill innocents in any conflict can be regarded as an " extremist " .

as to the validity of their " conversion " ( your quotes ), I cant really comment. The fact remains that whatever convinced them its obviously powerful

" Criminals" by and large dont become terrorists, its often intellectual types. but yes we have seen some with criminal behaviour but the vast majority have been distinguished by their ethnic and religious identification rather then anything else

So, we're back to, "Do we sit and do nothing, or do we try to find a solution?"

100% we try and find a solution , that solution has to contain bringing an end to the huge military action in the ME

BoatMad

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Europe born but identify as libians or syrian or morrocan or turks or ..

Some of these lads are 2 or even 3rd generation **insert european counrty** but still identify as soley being from the country their (grand) parent hailed from...

The moderate and integrated muslims refer to themselves as for example belgiuan or belgian morrocan òr french tunisian...

Those that refuse to recognise they have a connecgion with their birth country are the problems...

radicalisation is a process, one of the bombers in paris , had once wished to join the french police. !!

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

perhaps its too late, but the fact remains, we( the collective West ) are being targeted because of our recent and continuing involvement in the ME , and involvement that included and illegal invasion, the destabilisation of nation states, the arming and fermenting of revolution and the involved indiscriminate bombing and the death and maiming of thousands of innocents

This isnt hand wringing , this is the reality



anyone who is prepared to kill innocents in any conflict can be regarded as an " extremist " .

as to the validity of their " conversion " ( your quotes ), I cant really comment. The fact remains that whatever convinced them its obviously powerful

" Criminals" by and large dont become terrorists, its often intellectual types. but yes we have seen some with criminal behaviour but the vast majority have been distinguished by their ethnic and religious identification rather then anything else



100% we try and find a solution , that solution has to contain bringing an end to the huge military action in the ME

It is the reality, yes.
The hand-wringing bit is where we blame the bombing of the middle East, and ignore the fact that British/French/German/Swedish, or A.N. Other victims are just as innocent as those killed in the Middle East.

We've seen several attackers with criminal histories, or a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.

I'd agree with bringing an end to military action in the Middle East (though exactly how innocent people there should then be protected from their own Governments/Military/Militias is problematic), but good luck with trying to persuade the relevant Governments of that fact.

The reality is they're not going to listen to you, or to me.

The_Kew_Tour

http://news.sky.com/story/portland-attack-heroes-killed-stopping-anti-muslim-attacker-10895960

Was going to have this in seperate thread, but felt AH might be bit overtaken with Scum killing people over Religion.

This "White Supremacist" or basically a lowlife scum bag trying killing Muslims is also not right.

Yet again innocent people being killed.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/portland-attack-heroes-killed-stopping-anti-muslim-attacker-10895960

Was going to have this in seperate thread, but felt AH might be bit overtaken with Scum killing people over Religion.

This "White Supremacist" or basically a lowlife scum bag trying killing Muslims is also not right.

Yet again innocent people being killed.

Absolutely.

There is no excuse for killing innocent people. It's not acceptable.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

It is the reality, yes.
The hand-wringing bit is where we blame the bombing of the middle East, and ignore the fact that British/French/German/Swedish, or A.N. Other victims are just as innocent as those killed in the Middle East.

We've seen several attackers with criminal histories, or a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse.

I'd agree with bringing an end to military action in the Middle East (though exactly how innocent people there should then be protected from their own Governments/Military/Militias is problematic), but good luck with trying to persuade the relevant Governments of that fact.

The reality is they're not going to listen to you, or to me.

The last line is why terrorists exist

Danzy

How did foreign policy of Britain force Didsbury Mosque to host Speakers who call for the killing of Gays, Jews, Atheists, the need for women to be beaten by their husbands.

Until those who point out that the Foreign Policy stinks start pointing out that the views and attitudes that are significant in Islam and among a large no. of Muslims are completely opposed to even the most basic idea of a free or progressive society then people will continue to just ignore you.

GT_TDI_150

Trump_Wall wrote: »

Comparing the IRA with ISIS is a grave and inaccurate folly.

I merely mentioned the IRA to show that the 0.001% stat is way off ... it would indicate ONLY 30-40 people in Ireland are directly or indirectly linked to terrorism.

GT_TDI_150

So people go to syria to fight along side/for ISIS and we should be concerned about how any of our actions affect their civil liberties?

Trump_Wall

We have to be nuanced, though.

Usually the truth lurks in between two radically opposing views. The idea that Islamic terror would dry up the second that the West withdraws is absurd. Islamic terror would invariably continue; the Islamists would merely move on to their next demand.

At the same time, though, the idea that foreign policy has no link to Islamic terror is just as absurd. Ill-considered Western intervention is not the cause of Islamic terror but, when done improperly, can lead to power vacuums where Islamic terror can metastasize further.

Foreign policy is a small but not insignificant cog in this debate. Let's not lurch to either extreme stance based on the bias of our political outlook - be it Left or Right.

BoatMad

Danzy wrote: »

How did foreign policy of Britain force Didsbury Mosque to host Speakers who call for the killing of Gays, Jews, Atheists, the need for women to be beaten by their husbands.

Until those who point out that the Foreign Policy stinks start pointing out that the views and attitudes that are significant in Islam and among a large no. of Muslims are completely opposed to even the most basic idea of a free or progressive society then people will continue to just ignore you.

The position of radical Islam on Gays, women,is unchanged ,before and after the current ME crisis

IN that regard it has nothing to do with it. The treatment of such peoples in countries largely ruled by Sharia law is for those people to work out,

A Free and progressive society only applies to " us " , its not for us to decide someone else should be forcefully " be free and progressive ". Such cultural attitudes are in fact colonialism in disguise

Muslims have been practising Sharia law for a long time, however they have only recently began terror campaigns of any magnitude in Europe in recent years , you might ask yourself what events are co-incident with that ???