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

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 12:21AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

can you expand on this?

you not think the lives of all those innocent people killed this week, arent worth protecting?

the word intern also gives impression that they would just take people in and not even investigate - internet search history, travel history, social media usage etc etc, all this can be quickly checked with a search warranty. ive seen tweets today where people said that they would bomb "white people"....while these are bogus account, i am sure that the people responsible could and should be put into jail for 10 years, no matter who they are.

this is a critical issue now, there is no more room for political correctness and risk taking at the outside chance that you may upset somebody.

Stop with your common sense....you will be called a racist now #notallmuslims...like we dont already know:rolleyes:

AllForIt · 28-05-2017 12:29AM

zerks wrote: »

Serial troll and all round cnut Katie Hopkins has left LBC radio immediately over her comments about the bombing.Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

This was a tricky one for me. I listen to LBC and I think she's very good especially in arguments related to Brexit. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of hers she but does present valid intelligent argument from time to time.

The reason I say this one was tricky is because she used the phrase 'final solution' which we all know is synonymous with Hitlers extermination of the Jews.

But she obviously wasn't talking about extermination of Muslims, she obviously meant extermination of the terrorists. Not that she proposed any way to to that.

In the aftermath of the Mancs bombing every politician has been at pains to call the perpetrator and his associates extremists, people who have noting whatsoever to do with the Muslim world. But if that really is the case then how can her comments to exterminate the terrorists be taken as a call to exterminate Muslims, when the Muslims say that the extremists have nothing to do with with them and has nothing to do with their Islamic faith.

So what I'm suggesting here is that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. If you say that terrorists are not Muslim terrorists, then why be offended when Hopkins suggests to exterminate the terrorists?

GT_TDI_150 · 28-05-2017 12:30AM

It always amàzes me how quick they are able to find accomplices, properties used, travel patterns of those involved when a terrorist attack happens (and i dont mean amazes as in concpiracy theory alert)

It just makes me think of 2 things:

A) imagine if security personel were adequatly resources to investigate reportings of radicalised locals. If they had the legal frame work to take radicalised people off the streets .... the strike rate for these attacks should and could go from 1 'completed attack' for 12-15 foiled to 1 in 50? 1 in 100?

But more worryingly.. you have to assume at some point members of these cells are going to realise that they need to change how they work/communicate...surely billy-no-mates1 is going to be saying to a bomber, dont go ruining it for the rest of us ie... "Dont leave a trail, destroy any link to the cell"

AllForIt · 28-05-2017 12:42AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

It always amàzes me how quick they are able to find accomplices, properties used, travel patterns of those involved when a terrorist attack happens (and i dont mean amazes as in concpiracy theory alert)

It just makes me think of 2 things:

A) imagine if security personel were adequatly resources to investigate reportings of radicalised locals. If they had the legal frame work to take radicalised people off the streets .... the strike rate for these attacks should and could go from 1 'completed attack' for 12-15 foiled to 1 in 50? 1 in 100?

But more worryingly.. you have to assume at some point members of these cells are going to realise that they need to change how they work/communicate...surely billy-no-mates1 is going to be saying to a bomber, dont go ruining it for the rest of us ie... "Dont leave a trail, destroy any link to the cell"

All those raids that were reported subsequently were just for show. It satisfied a need for the public to see that something was being done by the government.

On your point A, your absolutely right. There is no legal framework in place that those people can be raided and interrogated unless they have committed a crime.. Unless you bring in a law the outlaws such activities, which I advocate, nothing will change.

homerjay2005 · 28-05-2017 12:53AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

It always am?zes me how quick they are able to find accomplices, properties used, travel patterns of those involved when a terrorist attack happens (and i dont mean amazes as in concpiracy theory alert)

It just makes me think of 2 things:

A) imagine if security personel were adequatly resources to investigate reportings of radicalised locals. If they had the legal frame work to take radicalised people off the streets .... the strike rate for these attacks should and could go from 1 'completed attack' for 12-15 foiled to 1 in 50? 1 in 100?

But more worryingly.. you have to assume at some point members of these cells are going to realise that they need to change how they work/communicate...surely billy-no-mates1 is going to be saying to a bomber, dont go ruining it for the rest of us ie... "Dont leave a trail, destroy any link to the cell"

or maybe, just maybe they already knew this, but didnt want to act due to "human rights".

political correctness is killing the modern world.

buried · 28-05-2017 12:58AM

I'd say the authorities in Manchester were watching that demented coward a good bit beforehand and knew exactly who he was hanging with. My own theory is that they assumed this f**ker or someone like him was going to target a weekend premier league match, maybe had tried to attempt it or intercepted chatter that a match was the target for these cowards, then the police were sideblinded as the fascist fundamentalist cowards instead made a concert on a Monday night the target. F**king Snakes and their lowlife mules, that's what is being dealt with here.

AllForIt · 28-05-2017 01:01AM

buried wrote: »

I'd say the authorities in Manchester were watching that demented coward a good bit beforehand and knew exactly who he was hanging with. My own theory is that they assumed this f**ker was going to target a weekend premier league match, maybe had tried to attempt it or intercepted chatter that a match was the target for these cowards, then the police were sideblinded as the fascist fundamentalist cowards instead made a concert on a Monday night the target. F**king Snakes and their lowlife mules, that's what is being dealt with here.

It's not that easy you know. They killed Charles de Menezes who was completely innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

They did it as a reaction to satisfy the public that something was being done after a terrorist attack and they got it badly wrong.

tigger123 · 28-05-2017 01:06AM

AllForIt wrote: »

This was a tricky one for me. I listen to LBC and I think she's very good especially in arguments related to Brexit. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of hers she but does present valid intelligent argument from time to time.

The reason I say this one was tricky is because she used the phrase 'final solution' which we all know is synonymous with Hitlers extermination of the Jews.

But she obviously wasn't talking about extermination of Muslims, she obviously meant extermination of the terrorists. Not that she proposed any way to to that.

I've never, ever seen the phrase 'final solution' used in any other context than the holocaust.

mcsaddle · 28-05-2017 01:10AM

tigger123 wrote: »

I've never, ever seen the phrase 'final solution' used in any other context than the holocaust.

I appreciated the remarks you made at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. You had clearly researched the subject, and many of us felt that yours was a voice of sanity in the midst of an emotional and divisive discussion. I wish that more people would try to see all sides of the issues that come up.
No matter how the final vote goes, I want you to know that what you said had a significant impact on many of us. Thank you.

homerjay2005 · 28-05-2017 01:12AM

AllForIt wrote: »

It's not that easy you know. They killed Charles de Menezes who was completely innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

They did it as a reaction to satisfy the public that something was being done after a terrorist attack and they got it badly wrong.

who is "they"? a small group of officers made an error and it was mistaken identity - completely different aspect to what we are talking about. that was 12 years ago, it shouldnt have happened but you can keep using 1 example 12 years later to justify the death of 100s of people since.

or ill put it to you another way - if a friend or family member of yours was in manchester last week and was impacted by the attack, would you accept their involvement because 1 person died 12 years ago by mistake?

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 01:13AM

tigger123 wrote: »

I've never, ever seen the phrase 'final solution' used in any other context than the holocaust.

It is a solution that is the end of the problem you are trying to solve...hence its final.
But I think Hopkins was using the phrase in Hitlers context to get a rise out of people and it seems to have worked.
I doubt she was saying exterminate all Muslims,more likely get real tough on these radical Islamic preachers but putting it in a way that would cause controversy.

I dont condone her choice of words though and I believe she did it deliberatly to stoke up tensions...Cant stand the woman!!

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 02:19AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

can you expand on this?

you not think the lives of all those innocent people killed this week, arent worth protecting?

the word intern also gives impression that they would just take people in and not even investigate - internet search history, travel history, social media usage etc etc, all this can be quickly checked with a search warrant.

this is a critical issue now, there is no more room for political correctness and risk taking at the outside chance that you may upset somebody.

and unfortunately, your attitude of "ah sure, you cant be doing that" is the very reason why nothing is changing. sadly, it looks like the governments in france, uk, germany etc are adapting the same stance out of fear of upsetting people and its costing people lives

You really need this explained?

Ok.......

I ring the police:

"Listen my friend Homeyjay2005 left his laptop open and I saw he was watching a few ISIS beheading videos online. He's also been yapping lately about how those Western pigs need teaching a lesson. I also believe he went on a holiday to Turkey recently".

So you're cool with the police locking you up based on my/other people reporting concerns?

The word "intern" means locked up without trial.

They can investigate all they want but if you haven't, ya know, actually broken any laws then they can't just throw you in prison.

Which is exactly what you're calling for here.

Watching ISIS videos, thinking the West are pigs and travelling to known terrorist countries are not actually crimes. You're aware they're not crimes right?

Yeah, my attitude IS "ah sure you can't be locking people up who didn't commit a crime based on a suspicion they might one day commit a crime".

Absolute unreal nonsense.

I want to live in a country where if you break laws, you're arrested, presumed innocent and given a day in court.

You seem to want to live in a country where they throw people in jail on the off chance they might some day commit a crime.

It's not "political correctness" to hold that view, it's actually just correct.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 02:26AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

You really need this explained?

Ok.......

I ring the police:

"Listen my friend Homeyjay2005 left his laptop open and I saw he was watching a few ISIS beheading videos online. He's also been yapping lately about how those Western pigs need teaching a lesson. I also believe he went on a holiday to Turkey recently".

So you're cool with the police locking you up based on my/other people reporting concerns?

The word "intern" means locked up without trial.

They can investigate all they want but if you haven't, ya know, actually broken any laws then they can't just throw you in prison.

Which is exactly what you're calling for here.

Watching ISIS videos, thinking the West are pigs and travelling to known terrorist countries are not actually crimes. You're aware they're not crimes right?

Yeah, my attitude IS "ah sure you can't be locking people up who didn't commit a crime based on a suspicion they might one day commit a crime".

Absolute unreal nonsense.

I want to live in a country where if you break laws, you're arrested, presumed innocent and given a day in court.

You seem to want to live in a country where they throw people in jail on the off chance they might some day commit a crime.

It's not "political correctness" to hold that view, it's actually just correct.

I sure aul Homer said investigate...
so what you made up as an argument is bollocks.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 02:30AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the word intern also gives impression that they would just take people in and not even investigate - internet search history, travel history, social media usage etc etc, all this can be quickly checked with a search warrant.

gitzy16v wrote: »

I sure aul Homer said investigate...
so what you made up as an argument is bollocks.

Do you even bother pretending trying to read?

He said:

"Would just take people in and not even investigate" and then said what can be checked with a search warrant.

At no point did he suggest they would then be charged with a crime and tried in a court of law. He suggested it's political correctness from people like me that won't accept throwing them in jail based on "an investigation".

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 02:36AM

the word intern also gives impression that they would just take people in and not even investigate -

Thats what he said eyeballs!!!!!

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 02:40AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

the word intern also gives impression that they would just take people in and not even investigate -

Thats what he said eyeballs!!!!!

I'll spell it out again slowly:

If they investigate and find evidence of a crime, they will charge the person with a crime and take them to court.

If they investigate and only find that the person reads ISIS propaganda, has travelled to Syria, follows 800 Jihadi Twitter accounts and hates the West..... they are not crimes.

He wanted them locked up for that = internment.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 02:42AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'll spell it out again slowly:

If they investigate and find evidence of a crime, they will charge the person with a crime and take them to court.

If they investigate and only find that the person reads ISIS propaganda, has travelled to Syria, follows 800 Jihadi Twitter accounts and hates the West..... they are not crimes.

He wanted them locked up for that = internment.

Spell it out in bigger letters for me.

You seem to think that carry on is ok?????

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 02:47AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Spell it out in bigger letters for me.

You seem to think that carry on is ok?????

That "carry on" is not a crime.

Do you believe in laws or what?

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 02:49AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That "carry on" is not a crime.

Do you believe in laws or what?

That carry on is worth being arrested and questioned over.
Or do you think its ok?

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 02:56AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

That carry on is worth being arrested and questioned over.
Or do you think its ok?

That all depends.

Doctors travel to/from Syria all the time.
Journalists watch ISIS videos and report on them.
Professors in Universities follow/study Jihadi's on social media.

None of the things he mentioned are a crime or necessarily problematic, in a vacuum.

But of course they are warning signs that need to be heeded. The problem is they're still not a crime.

They might be enough circumstantial evidence to go to a Judge to get a search warrant or a surveillance warrant but you still can't charge someone with a crime they might or might not commit in the future.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 02:59AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That all depends.

Doctors travel to/from Syria all the time.
Journalists watch ISIS videos and report on them.
Professors in Universities follow/study Jihadi's on social media.

None of the things he mentioned are a crime or necessarily problematic, in a vacuum.

But of course they are warning signs that need to be heeded. The problem is they're still not a crime.

They might be enough circumstantial evidence to go to a Judge to get a search warrant or a surveillance warrant but you still can't charge someone with a crime they might or might not commit in the future.

Hopefully a discussion on your statement might develop over in PC...I dont agree

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 03:03AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Hopefully a discussion on your statement might develop over in PC...I dont agree

You don't agree that you can't charge someone with a crime they haven't yet committed and may never commit?

Minority Report tried it, didn't work out great in the end.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 03:06AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

You don't agree that you can't charge someone with a crime they haven't yet committed and may never commit?

Minority Report tried it, didn't work out great in the end.

No...I dont agree with your stance on the subject.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 03:08AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

No...I dont agree with your stance on the subject.

My stance is: "You can't charge people with a crime they have not committed based on a guess they might some day commit it".

You disagree?

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 03:09AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

My stance is: "You can't charge people with a crime they have not committed based on a guess they might some day commit it".

You disagree?

Your stance is way...way...broader than that.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 03:23AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Your stance is way...way...broader than that.

My broader stance is there's over 3 million Muslims in the UK and there's been a total of 4 people involved in major terrorist incidents in the UK since 2006 - Abedi, Masood and the 2 killers of Lee Rigby.

If I'm going to anecdotally judge if a religion is violent or peaceful based on how many people commit domestic terrorist attacks, then 0.000114% of the UK's Muslim population have committed terrorist incidents on home soil.

Anyway, no point discussing it. Chasing our tails.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 03:30AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

My broader stance is there's over 3 million Muslims in the UK and there's been a total of 4 people involved in major terrorist incidents in the UK since 2006 - Abedi, Masood and the 2 killers of Lee Rigby.

If I'm going to anecdotally judge if a religion is violent or peaceful based on how many people commit domestic terrorist attacks, then 0.000114% of the UK's Muslim population have committed terrorist incidents on home soil.

Anyway, no point discussing it. Chasing our tails.

Make up whatever argument you want pal....All I said was radical Islamic teachings are corrupting young impressionable Muslims...4 or 40 it makes no difference...its them thats blowing innocents up in this day and age nobody else.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 03:32AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

My stance is: "You can't charge people with a crime they have not committed based on a guess they might some day commit it".

You disagree?

How about this.....every single person who has committed a terrorist attack in Europe in the name of ISIS has been on a police watchlist for downloading terrorist paraphernalia....let that sink in.....not one of these murderers was unknown to the police....so, how about making it a crime to download or access such paraphernalia including radicalisation websites, terrorist cookbooks, etc etc...and before you say anything about viewing such things does not give intent how about this.....viewing child pornography is a crime....it does not mean you have intent to do it in real life but it is still a crime that should be punishable by incarceration....so how about everyone who is on a watchlist (and they are there for a reason because of websites, books, attendance) should be interred and face court....make terrorist paraphernalia equivalent to child pornography! Or is that politically incorrect?

njs030 · 28-05-2017 03:37AM

joeguevara wrote: »

How about this.....every single person who has committed a terrorist attack in Europe in the name of ISIS has been on a police watchlist for downloading terrorist paraphernalia....let that sink in.....not one of these murderers was unknown to the police....so, how about making it a crime to download or access such paraphernalia including radicalisation websites, terrorist cookbooks, etc etc...and before you say anything about viewing such things does not give intent how about this.....viewing child pornography is a crime....it does not mean you have intent to do it in real life but it is still a crime that should be punishable by incarceration....so how about everyone who is on a watchlist (and they are there for a reason because of websites, books, attendance) should be interred and face court....make terrorist paraphernalia equivalent to child pornography! Or is that politically incorrect?

That's utterly crazy.

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 03:38AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

That's utterly crazy.

Why?

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

Comments