London Bridge Incident

nickice

mamba80 wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And athiests have a great track record when it comes to atrocities do they?

Atheism is not an ideology it's just simply lack of belief in God. Religion is not the only basis for committing evil acts but there is no interpretation of atheism to justify evil as it's not an ideology.

Meanwhile in the real world.....

How about routine arming of Police? i mean i lived Sweden and S/Afica and its not as if you cant go up to a copper and ask for directions, they ve gun on their hip, thats all and this isnt a view i ve just got, i ve long believed its totally unfair to expect a PC to tackle certain types of crime that have become more common in recent years.

Unfortunately, had this attack taken place in Plymouth etc the response time (to stop the attack) by armed police would have been an awful lot longer than 8 mins, we d be relying on PCs with batons and tazers, look how many were killed and injured in those 8 mins!

as for internment, guaranteed to p1ss off the vast majority of Muslims and you d need to imprison not just 23k but all muslims for it to work.

the resources need to go into prevent strategies and more resource into intel (one of the attackers was reported to the hot line and seemingly no action taken) i also think we need a proper ID card scheme, for a variety of reasons, Blairs 90 day internment for suspects too, dropped after court challenges.

Thankfully, a lot of these people are real amateurs. If casualties is what they're looking for, they'd be, like you said, better going to a provincial town and not central London. I fear that this is eventually what'll happen.

Regarding internment, I'm still not totally convinced but I wouldn't suggest the 23,000 number rather than the 3,000 number. If it's based on good intelligence and goes before a panel of judges (some intelligence can't go before a court) then it's potentially doable. Let's not forget that it's beeen done before with better results than Northern Ireland. And it shouldn't piss off Muslims as most Muslims don't support terrorism. A former counter terror chief of the Met (incidentally also a Muslim) has called for internment as there are too many would-be jihadists. Regarding resources, there are just too many would-be jihadists to watch them all. Even 3000 is an unrealistic number to keep tabs on and we can forget about watching 23,000. That's why internment is being proposed: the problem is too large for the security services to deal with.

city_boy

Apart from some of the already mentioned issues with internment, we also need to be mindful that there is a school of thought that UK prisons are a potential hot bed of Islamic radicalisation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... ourish-in/

Not that Islamic extremism has got anything whatsoever to do with these and the many other terror attacks across Europe recently :roll:

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also Goo, just relax.

Chances are you won't be near an attack.

Fwiw I've had a few drinks in the restaurant in question in London Bridge and I'm not getting so upset that I want to intern thousands of people.

Think you need to be a bit braver. The justification for the acts of terror is they change things. The hate they generate justifies they own nihilistic world view.

Getting all scared and demanding action is to give in. You need to be a bit better than that.

I manage, and I've been a lot closer to 2 of the last 3 attacks than you have.

It's not about whether I'll be near an attack and my fear. And internment is not giving in. As others have said on here, monitoring all the suspects is clearly proving impossible. Lifting the 3000 would be a start.

That said it seems that nothing is going to stop this and it is our new reality.

In the news Qatar has had its diplomatic ties with other Arab states severed, due to their links to funding terrorism. The Kingdom being one of those to cut off diplomatic ties. Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Jez mon

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also Goo, just relax.

Chances are you won't be near an attack.

Fwiw I've had a few drinks in the restaurant in question in London Bridge and I'm not getting so upset that I want to intern thousands of people.

Think you need to be a bit braver. The justification for the acts of terror is they change things. The hate they generate justifies they own nihilistic world view.

Getting all scared and demanding action is to give in. You need to be a bit better than that.

I manage, and I've been a lot closer to 2 of the last 3 attacks than you have.

It's not about whether I'll be near an attack and my fear. And internment is not giving in. As others have said on here, monitoring all the suspects is clearly proving impossible. Lifting the 3000 would be a start.

That said it seems that nothing is going to stop this and it is our new reality.

In the news Qatar has had its diplomatic ties with other Arab states severed, due to their links to funding terrorism. The Kingdom being one of those to cut off diplomatic ties. Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Is there not a balance to be reached? Locking up 3000 potential subjects in response to the threat seems quite out of balance. How long do we lock them up for? For the handful out of that 3000 that would go on to commit attacks, you would have to lock them up for life surely? Can you accurately sift through the those that wouldn't actually go on and attack, or do you then lock them up forever too?

Bear in mind these are people that haven't actually committed a crime yet...

mr_goo

Jez mon wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also Goo, just relax.

Chances are you won't be near an attack.

Fwiw I've had a few drinks in the restaurant in question in London Bridge and I'm not getting so upset that I want to intern thousands of people.

Think you need to be a bit braver. The justification for the acts of terror is they change things. The hate they generate justifies they own nihilistic world view.

Getting all scared and demanding action is to give in. You need to be a bit better than that.

I manage, and I've been a lot closer to 2 of the last 3 attacks than you have.

It's not about whether I'll be near an attack and my fear. And internment is not giving in. As others have said on here, monitoring all the suspects is clearly proving impossible. Lifting the 3000 would be a start.

That said it seems that nothing is going to stop this and it is our new reality.

In the news Qatar has had its diplomatic ties with other Arab states severed, due to their links to funding terrorism. The Kingdom being one of those to cut off diplomatic ties. Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Is there not a balance to be reached? Locking up 3000 potential subjects in response to the threat seems quite out of balance. How long do we lock them up for? For the handful out of that 3000 that would go on to commit attacks, you would have to lock them up for life surely? Can you accurately sift through the those that wouldn't actually go on and attack, or do you then lock them up forever too?

Bear in mind these are people that haven't actually committed a crime yet...

Within the 3000 are all the returning IS combatants.
So yes they have committed crimes. I'd like to know why they were allowed to return to the UK without being stopped. Perhaps you have an answer to that.

nickice

Jez mon wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also Goo, just relax.

Chances are you won't be near an attack.

Fwiw I've had a few drinks in the restaurant in question in London Bridge and I'm not getting so upset that I want to intern thousands of people.

Think you need to be a bit braver. The justification for the acts of terror is they change things. The hate they generate justifies they own nihilistic world view.

Getting all scared and demanding action is to give in. You need to be a bit better than that.

I manage, and I've been a lot closer to 2 of the last 3 attacks than you have.

It's not about whether I'll be near an attack and my fear. And internment is not giving in. As others have said on here, monitoring all the suspects is clearly proving impossible. Lifting the 3000 would be a start.

That said it seems that nothing is going to stop this and it is our new reality.

In the news Qatar has had its diplomatic ties with other Arab states severed, due to their links to funding terrorism. The Kingdom being one of those to cut off diplomatic ties. Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.

Is there not a balance to be reached? Locking up 3000 potential subjects in response to the threat seems quite out of balance. How long do we lock them up for? For the handful out of that 3000 that would go on to commit attacks, you would have to lock them up for life surely? Can you accurately sift through the those that wouldn't actually go on and attack, or do you then lock them up forever too?

Bear in mind these are people that haven't actually committed a crime yet...

If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time.

Surely if attacks are being 'foiled', there would be corresponding numbers of arrests though? To foil an attack, you have to know what is being planned, how, and by whom. And if they don't know who is planning it, how can they foil it? So if they are foiling all these attacks, where are the arrests and subsequent charges?

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time.

Surely if attacks are being 'foiled', there would be corresponding numbers of arrests though? To foil an attack, you have to know what is being planned, how, and by whom. And if they don't know who is planning it, how can they foil it? So if they are foiling all these attacks, where are the arrests and subsequent charges?

There are lots of arrests. I'd imagine the security services have disrupted several networks without actually having enough evidence to convict.

Alex99

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

DeVlaeminck

I'm not sure there is a domestic answer to all this. Islamist ideology is a problem wherever there are muslims, a minority of them will believe in this radical ideology and a minority of that minority will be willing to carry out attacks.

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British. Secondly ban faith schools, yes I know this goes far wider than the muslim community but how can we expect integration on the one hand yet segregate kids on the other. Third where some of these radicals have dual nationality strip them of their British citizenship and get rid of them, if they don't like it here then don't stay. Fourth we need to be clearer about what British values are - too many concessions made for religious belief which are not made for other beliefs and that fosters a sense of entitlement.

imposter2.0

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

imposter2.0

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm not sure there is a domestic answer to all this. Islamist ideology is a problem wherever there are muslims, a minority of them will believe in this radical ideology and a minority of that minority will be willing to carry out attacks.

That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British. Secondly ban faith schools, yes I know this goes far wider than the muslim community but how can we expect integration on the one hand yet segregate kids on the other. Third where some of these radicals have dual nationality strip them of their British citizenship and get rid of them, if they don't like it here then don't stay. Fourth we need to be clearer about what British values are - too many concessions made for religious belief which are not made for other beliefs and that fosters a sense of entitlement.

A major and necessary step forward towards this would be the disestablishment of the Church of England, and the separation of church and state. Good luck with that

nickice

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

pretty much.

Deeds not words and all that.

Are you advocating thought police?

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

Sure. If they can achieve that objective via democratic means, then good luck to them.

TheBigBean

I'd like to intern anyone calling for internment. The right to a fair trial is one of those British values that I think is worth fighting for.

Jez mon

nickice wrote:

If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.

Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

pretty much.

Deeds not words and all that.

Are you advocating thought police?

No, another strawman, but I've come to expect non-intelligent debate from you. An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?

nickice

Jez mon wrote:

nickice wrote:

If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.

Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?

If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.

And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?

It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.

The 'phoney war' came after war had been declared, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say there was 'no state of total war' - the word 'total' is a bit superflous there.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?

It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.

As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

pretty much.

Deeds not words and all that.

Are you advocating thought police?

No, another strawman, but I've come to expect non-intelligent debate from you. An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Yeah, and extreme view.

You can think and hold whatever view you want. It's the actions you take that define you in society.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.

'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.

I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?

Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.

Using that paradigm, Islamists who want to the UK to be an Islamic theocracy are not extreme if they don't resort to violence.

pretty much.

Deeds not words and all that.

Are you advocating thought police?

No, another strawman, but I've come to expect non-intelligent debate from you. An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Yeah, and extreme view.

You can think and hold whatever view you want. It's the actions you take that define you in society.

The OP said asking for something was not extreme. I and some other posters pointed out that it depends what they're asking for. I'm not advocating banning Islamism anyway so the point is moot.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?

It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.

As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.

That's simply wrong. We live in liberal democracies in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We don't live in simple democracies.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

The OP said asking for something was not extreme. I and some other posters pointed out that it depends what they're asking for.

Like I said earlier - 'asking' for anything is not extreme. For everything else, we already have the incitement laws.

rick_chasey

What are you advocating then?

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.

Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?

It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.

As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.

That's simply wrong. We live in liberal democracies in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We don't live in simple democracies.

So you value a liberal democracy, but reserve the right to get upset if you don't like the result?

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd like to intern anyone calling for internment. The right to a fair trial is one of those British values that I think is worth fighting for.

I don't think we're there yet but the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (some may find it difficult to believe but I have an LLM in Human Rights law) does actually support internment in emergency situations. Whether we're in such a situation is another question. In any case, being interred is not the same as being sent to prison without trial.