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

JPCN1 · 28-05-2017 03:42AM

Resources.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 03:45AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Why?

To equate reading a book or visiting websites about a subject like isis - which journalists, teachers etc may needs to do, or which people might find important to understand what is happening to make these people act this way- with watching a child being raped is a disturbing viewpoint.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 03:48AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

To equate reading a book or visiting websites about a subject - which journalists, teachers etc may needs to do, or which people might find interesting to understand what is happening to make these people act this way- with watching a child being raped is a disturbing viewpoint.

Think about what your saying!

Maybe it's time to do something different. What we are doing now is not working. How about stop protecting murderers because other people might be interested in terrorism. If it's downloaded, lock them up, reverse the burden of proof and make them prove they accessed it for a genuine reason...just a thought

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 03:49AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

To equate reading a book or visiting websites about a subject - which journalists, teachers etc may needs to do, or which people might find interesting to understand what is happening to make these people act this way- with watching a child being raped is a disturbing viewpoint.

Could people not do the same reading up on child abuse....
Dont know what way to word it....but im sure there is some legal line that is drawn where enough is enough.

jobbridge4life · 28-05-2017 03:51AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Think about what your saying!

I'm fairly certain that NJS has, and I'd bet from the posts quite a bit more than some others.:cool:

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 03:53AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'm fairly certain that NJS has, and I'd bet from the posts quite a bit more than some others.:cool:

Pete Townsend defence

njs030 · 28-05-2017 03:55AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Could people not do the same reading up on child abuse....
Dont know what way to word it....but im sure there is some legal line that is drawn where enough is enough.

They wouldn't be arrested or "interred" which the poster doesn't seem to realise means imprisoned without trial which doesn't happen for any reason here or in England.

Something does have to happen but throwing people into prison for no reason won't help and the last thing any one needs is human rights groups getting involved which would happen if any of these crazy ideas were put into practice.

AllForIt · 28-05-2017 03:59AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

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.

I admit my point was clumsily put. On your second point I have no idea where your coming from. I can't see how you have extrapolated that I am justifing terrorist acts? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

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

?

This is complete nonsense to me.

The point I was making was that surveillance is not as easy as it looks, and I pointed out an example where it went horribly wrong.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:02AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

They wouldn't be arrested or "interred" which the poster doesn't seem to realise means imprisoned without trial which doesn't happen for any reason here or in England.

Something does have to happen but throwing people into prison for no reason won't help and the last thing any one needs is human rights groups getting involved which would happen if any of these crazy ideas were put into practice.

Yes people who commit a crime would be arrested and would depend on each circumstance whether they would be released on bail....I seem to remember England interred a large number of supposed terrorists without trial in the 70s....

gitzy16v · 28-05-2017 04:05AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

They wouldn't be arrested or "interred" which the poster doesn't seem to realise means imprisoned without trial which doesn't happen for any reason here or in England.

Something does have to happen but throwing people into prison for no reason won't help and the last thing any one needs is human rights groups getting involved which would happen if any of these crazy ideas were put into practice.

Interred is the new buzzword it seems......arrest these people....suss(investigate) them out...and charge...release or imprison...im not seeing the issue with this...Hell if the brits took me in when I was driving trucks over and back in the late 80's early 90's and called me out out...id know why..its cause of the IRA and I was a security concern...did what I was told,told who i was and away with me...cant understand this they are not all the same...the brits found out fairly quick who i was and let me on my way...is it not totally understandable that they would check me out and me coming from IRA Ireland

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 04:17AM

joeguevara wrote: »

If it's downloaded, lock them up, reverse the burden of proof and make them prove they accessed it for a genuine reason...just a thought

Guilty until proven innocent.

Only applied to Muslims.

Yeah, this approach would surely work and not make things worse.......

Sigh.

Look, I know there's a lot of fair minded people on this thread who believe we need to try something extreme in order to solve this problem.

To them I'd say 3 things:

1. Problem is unsolvable.
2. Problem is not as bad as you think it is anyway.
3. Extreme solutions breed extreme problems.

They locked up 775 people without trial in Guantanamo Bay and that was one of the major reasons for the growth of ISIS.

Extreme solutions always fail largely because they just create (or worsen) other problems. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920's was aimed at (obviously) stopping people drinking, not only did it fail but one of the immediate by-products was that organised crime absolutely flourished. Murders nationwide increased by 60%.

TL;DR - If they did try an extreme solution in the UK that targeted the Muslim population in a way they don't target the rest, it'd make things far worse and fast.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:28AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent.

Only applied to Muslims.

Yeah, this approach would surely work and not make things worse.......

Sigh.

Look, I know there's a lot of fair minded people on this thread who believe we need to try something extreme in order to solve this problem.

To them I'd say 3 things:

1. Problem is unsolvable.
2. Problem is not as bad as you think it is anyway.
3. Extreme solutions breed extreme problems.

They locked up 775 people without trial in Guantanamo Bay and that was one of the major reasons for the growth of ISIS.

Extreme solutions always fail largely because they just create (or worsen) other problems. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920's was aimed at (obviously) stopping people drinking, not only did it fail but one of the immediate by-products was that organised crime absolutely flourished. Murders nationwide increased by 60%.

TL;DR - If they did try an extreme solution in the UK that targeted the Muslim population in a way they don't target the rest, it'd make things far worse and fast.

Ok...decent post...but a couple of things....

Don't use 'sigh' because that implies that you are an adult trying to explain something to a child.

Secondly, the argument is not targeting Muslims....it is targeting muslims who are radicalised, accessed terrorist paraphernalia and is on a watchlist....in all fairness that is a bit of a difference.

Thirdly, if someone says something is unsolvable, then why have a counter terrorism policy at all to use a prohibition argument is a red herring. Alcohol is not inherently bad, but a radicalism Muslim who is predisposed to murdering innocent people is. At the moment no solution is being done and like it or not it is getting worse.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:28AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Interred is the new buzzword it seems......arrest these people....suss(investigate) them out...and charge...release or imprison...im not seeing the issue with this...Hell if the brits took me in when I was driving trucks over and back in the late 80's early 90's and called me out out...id know why..its cause of the IRA and I was a security concern...did what I was told,told who i was and away with me...cant understand this they are not all the same...the brits found out fairly quick who i was and let me on my way...is it not totally understandable that they would check me out and me coming from IRA Ireland

Interred is the new buzzword alright but why do people think it means arrested

Well there isn't the resources to arrest everyone that looks at websites but say there was-
Which terrorists would you have arrested?
There's more than just ISIS classed as terrorists in England....

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:29AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent.

Only applied to Muslims.

Yeah, this approach would surely work and not make things worse.......

Sigh.

Look, I know there's a lot of fair minded people on this thread who believe we need to try something extreme in order to solve this problem.

To them I'd say 3 things:

1. Problem is unsolvable.
2. Problem is not as bad as you think it is anyway.
3. Extreme solutions breed extreme problems.

They locked up 775 people without trial in Guantanamo Bay and that was one of the major reasons for the growth of ISIS.

Extreme solutions always fail largely because they just create (or worsen) other problems. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920's was aimed at (obviously) stopping people drinking, not only did it fail but one of the immediate by-products was that organised crime absolutely flourished. Murders nationwide increased by 60%.

TL;DR - If they did try an extreme solution in the UK that targeted the Muslim population in a way they don't target the rest, it'd make things far worse and fast.

And yes, there are many crimes where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty until proven innocent.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:33AM

joeguevara wrote: »

And yes, there are many crimes where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty until proven innocent.

Like?

jobbridge4life · 28-05-2017 04:34AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Yes people who commit a crime would be arrested and would depend on each circumstance whether they would be released on bail....I seem to remember England interred a large number of supposed terrorists without trial in the 70s....

...

You remember it? Do you also remember that it was an unmitigated disaster?

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:35AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Interred is the new buzzword alright but why do people think it means arrested

Well there isn't the resources to arrest everyone that looks at websites but say there was-
Which terrorists would you have arrested?
There's more than just ISIS classed as terrorists in England....

How about all on the UK ISIS watchlist. I don't see many other terrorist attacks in Europe not linked to ISIS....or should Europe sit back and let attack after attack happen, knowing who they are (remember they are on a watchlist and every suicide bomber and their network was already known) or should we just let them kill innocent people without doing anything?

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:37AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

...

You remember it? Do you also remember that it was an unmitigated disaster?

Yes....but did it also lead to peace? Or should we just sit back and do nothing because they are not Irish Catholics and it might p1ss off the Saudis?

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:39AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Like?

Possession of a weapon such as a knife.....and interestingly money laundering.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:43AM

joeguevara wrote: »

How about all on the UK ISIS watchlist. I don't see many other terrorist attacks in Europe not linked to ISIS....or should Europe sit back and let attack after attack happen, knowing who they are (remember they are on a watchlist and every suicide bomber and their network was already known) or should we just let them kill innocent people without doing anything?

Laws can't apply to just one group of people, if everyone who looks at terrorist propaganda in the UK is going to be arrested then that's everyone, Syrian, Lybian, Irish, Spanish, English, German, etc.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 04:44AM

gitzy16v wrote: »

Interred is the new buzzword it seems......arrest these people....suss(investigate) them out...and charge...release or imprison...im not seeing the issue with this...

But the ones that were actually thinking about committing an attack will now know the police are on to them and take even extra care about who they talk to, where they go, how they plan it etc.

The ones that weren't thinking about ever doing an attack will now think they've been persecuted due to their religion.

If you want my 2 cents on extreme solutions that might help that they need to do more of...

If I was the UK government I would recruit the very best hackers in the country and constantly disrupt, bring down, disable, crash every known server/website that spreads ISIS propaganda. Put more money into doing that.

I'd try 'flip' some extreme preachers with devoted followings into softening their message into one of peace or plant some long-term spies with the intention of them becoming preachers, who can then try disseminate that message.

Most of all, and I know for a fact this isn't done enough, I would counter-program ISIS propaganda. For every ISIS video or tweet sent out, there should be a dozen anti-ISIS videos and tweets swamping out their message.

For every video of an ISIS fighter with hot girls on his arm and looking powerful, I'd counter-program it a video of a before/after picture of an ISIS fighter alive, then dead.

21st century warfare isn't gonna be about nation states and storming the trenches. It's going to be an information war as much as a ground war.

Defeat ISIS online. Constantly drown out, subvert and diminish their capabilities of spreading hate.

It's no good just dropping MOAB's on these people, you have to defeat the message and appeal of extremism.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:44AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Laws can't apply to just one group of people, if everyone who looks at terrorist propaganda in the UK is going to be arrested then that's everyone, Syrian, Lybian, Irish, Spanish, English, German, etc.

I have no problem with that.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 04:47AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Ok...decent post...but a couple of things....

Don't use 'sigh' because that implies that you are an adult trying to explain something to a child.

Thirdly, if someone says something is unsolvable, then why have a counter terrorism policy at all...

Apologies for the 'sigh'. You're right.

Well, I don't think we'll ever as a species eradicate suicide. Not in my lifetime anyway. We should still try lessen the problem even if it's unfixable.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:48AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

But the ones that were actually thinking about committing an attack will now know the police are on to them and take even extra care about who they talk to, where they go, how they plan it etc.

The ones that weren't thinking about ever doing an attack will now think they've been persecuted due to their religion.

If you want my 2 cents on extreme solutions that might help that they need to do more of...

If I was the UK government I would recruit the very best hackers in the country and constantly disrupt, bring down, disable, crash every known server/website that spreads ISIS propaganda. Put more money into doing that.

I'd try 'flip' some extreme preachers with devoted followings into softening their message into one of peace or plant some long-term spies with the intention of them becoming preachers, who can then try disseminate that message.

Most of all, and I know for a fact this isn't done enough, I would counter-program ISIS propaganda. For every ISIS video or tweet sent out, there should be a dozen anti-ISIS videos and tweets swamping out their message.

For every video of an ISIS fighter with hot girls on his arm and looking powerful, I'd counter-program it a video of a before/after picture of an ISIS fighter alive, then dead.

21st century warfare isn't gonna be about nation states and storming the trenches. It's going to be an information war as much as a ground war.

Defeat ISIS online. Constantly drown out, subvert and diminish their capabilities of spreading hate.

It's no good just dropping MOAB's on these people, you have to defeat the message and appeal of extremism.

You are giving them too much credit. Remember everyone of these murderers were already known to the government. They are morons.....also, Europe already have pretty skilled hackers who already have infiltrated them....yes, they should recruit better and stop criminalising them like we have seen. But to not do anything is the biggest crime.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 04:50AM

joeguevara wrote: »

I have no problem with that.

But that ISIS video where the Jordanian pilot was burned alive was shared on every major publication with a "Graphic Content" disclaimer.... like everywhere...The Sun, Fox News, RTE, CNN, everywhere.

The truth is, the western media themselves often spread ISIS propaganda videos.

jobbridge4life · 28-05-2017 04:50AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Yes....but did it also lead to peace? Or should we just sit back and do nothing because they are not Irish Catholics and it might p1ss off the Saudis?

No. It didn't, this isn't really disputed. Interment was an unmitigated and colossal disaster. It directly exacerbated the situation.

As to your second question, don't try and infer things I haven't said, or given reason to suggest I would say, from my posts. It is a transparent attempt to distract.

njs030 · 28-05-2017 04:50AM

joeguevara wrote: »

Possession of a weapon such as a knife.....and interestingly money laundering.

Please provide a link that shows clearly that in the UK it's up to the defendant to prove they are not guilty.
The presumption of innocence is a UN human right.

Also am interested to see the rest of the "many" you claimed existed.

wonderfullife · 28-05-2017 04:53AM

joeguevara wrote: »

You are giving them too much credit. Remember everyone of these murderers were already known to the government. They are morons.....

Well, Abedi was known to the Government and still avoided detection in his plan and executed his attack almost flawlessly.

Maybe they're not as stupid as you think.

Whatsapp has been a massive development that has aided ISIS. Not just singling out whatsapp but all encrypted communications have really hamstrung western intelligence agencies and police forces.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:53AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

But that ISIS video where the Jordanian pilot was burned alive was shared on every major publication with a "Graphic Content" disclaimer.... like everywhere...The Sun, Fox News, RTE, CNN, everywhere.

The truth is, the western media themselves often spread ISIS propaganda videos.

I am more talking about 'how to' guides...such as terrorist cookbooks, making bombs, bringing things on planes....everyone on the watchlist is there for those things rather than watching a beheading. How about we start with that.

joeguevara · 28-05-2017 04:57AM

notjustsweet wrote: »

Please provide a link that shows clearly that in the UK it's up to the defendant to prove they are not guilty.
The presumption of innocence is a UN human right.

Also am interested to see the rest of the "many" you claimed existed.

If you are walking down the street with a baseball bat, you are presumed to be using it for an illegal purpose until you prove you are not.

With the proceeds of crime you are presumed to know, believe or reckless to same to launder it until you prove that you are innocent.

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

Comments