London Bridge Incident

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

They change the goalposts every time. In the 1990's Islamists were annoyed that the West wasn't intervening in Bosnia. Bin Laden''s primary gripe was that the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. He didn't care about Palestine.

That is just a convenient myth

Palestine matters greatly for al-Qaida. In a statement last Thursday, Bin Laden himself put it bluntly: "The events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon." Statements like these are usually dismissed in policy circles as rhetoric and opportunism. The problem, however, is that Bin Laden has spoken about Palestine throughout his entire political life. His first public speeches in the late 1980s advocated a boycott of American goods because of the US support for Israel. Since then, Palestine has featured in practically every statement and interview by Bin Laden. A quick check in Messages to the World, the Bin Laden reader edited by Bruce Lawrence, shows that Palestine is mentioned in seven of the book's eight pre-9/11 declarations and 13 of the 16 post-9/11 texts. A search for the word Palestine in a compilation of al-Qaida texts between 1990 and 2002 that I made for the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), produces no less than 158 hits. Most al-Qaida recruitment videos, including the first such production from early 2001, include images from Palestine. In short, Palestine is all over al-Qaida's propaganda and has been so for over a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... priorities

nickice wrote:

How do you know that about the bombings? From the skies, it's pretty difficult to separate civilians from combatants. And the reason many civlians are even there is because ISIS etc. won't let them leave.

I was referring to Pakistan and Yemen. Clearly, Syria is more grey. What's a combatant? Presumably one of those people that wouldn't become a prisoner of war, but could be detained indefinitely without trial?

nickice wrote:

As for bombing being an act of cowardice, that's not necessarily the case. It has been used in every war since the 30's. Are all those moments acts of cowardice? You could also just say using a gun is an act of cowardice.

Yes it has been cowardly throughout history. Ask someone who has been bombed whether they would rather have a soldier's gun pointed at them or bombs dropped at random.

Bin Laden used Palestine to get popular support. Palestinians are not Salafists and would be considered infidels . He used them in the same way ex-Baathists use ISIS recruits for their political aims.

As for Pakistan, in a perfect world, the Pakistanis (supposed to be US allies) would not be supporting the Taliban (that's why they didn't arrest Bin Laden as they couldn't trust the Pakistanis to do it. Well among other reasons)

And, yes, agreed the US should not be involved in Yemen but they're bombing Shias not Sunnis.

The question about the bombs- you could use the same argument to say guns are cowardly. If people are getting killed, I doubt their main complaint will be how it happens

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

It is popular, particularly in the media, to associate terrorism and Islam, but there are many terrorist events that are completely unrelated to Islam. Anders Breivik is a good example. The US has many example as well.

One attack six years ago? Not part of a broader network and hasn't been repeated since. Compare that with the number of Islamist attacks and foiled attacks. It's like when people bring up abortion clinic bombings or the Westboro Baptist Church.

One attack that killed more people than 7/7 and Manchester combined. Sure it's on a smaller global scale but I don't see what the qualitative difference is.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

It is popular, particularly in the media, to associate terrorism and Islam, but there are many terrorist events that are completely unrelated to Islam. Anders Breivik is a good example. The US has many example as well.

One attack six years ago? Not part of a broader network and hasn't been repeated since. Compare that with the number of Islamist attacks and foiled attacks. It's like when people bring up abortion clinic bombings or the Westboro Baptist Church.

One attack that killed more people than 7/7 and Manchester combined. Sure it's on a smaller global scale but I don't see what the qualitative difference is.

The difference is it's not part of an overall pattern. If it had just been the Manchester attack there'd be a point. Anyway, I think I've come as far as I can in this discussion. Bye for now.

mamba80

nickice wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Imho ...... ISIS might say that but the truth is before our recent adventures in Iraq etc, we had nothing like the level of radicalisation in the west and it was the destabilisation of Afghanistan (with a big helping hand from the US) which breed Bin Laden.

Devil finds work for idle hands, so the depression in the 20's and 30s became fertile ground for Hitlers ideology, just as brutal as ISil, the destruction of Iraqs civilisation has provided the same, add in false interpretation of the the Quoran and predominately young men find an outlet for their frustrations.
yesterday US bombed and killed 20 Syrian civilians fleeing their town, how does that ease tensions?

Why do you think Putin is spending a fortune in syria, backing an unpopular leader? he understands that unless stability is bought back to that place, then radicalism will spread.

I don't think Western foreign policy has helped but only to the extent that a power vacuum was left in Iraq and Lybia for Islamic extremists to take over. I'd also add that the biggest terrorist attack in the West took place before invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it"s grossly unfair to blame the US for Bin Laden. Yes , they helped him in a proxy war against the Soviet Union but there was nothing they did in Afghanistan (in the 1980's) that Bin Laden said motivated 9/11.

As for the US bombing civilians, it's really easy for us to judge them but civilians always die in war as it's just so chaotic. The West, generally, don't deliberately target civilians as a policy (though, of course, some soldiers will.

Islamic extremism (and Wahabbism) is older than any Western intervention in the ME and Islamic extremists are now recruiting from the West and targeting countries all over the World.

By the way, what is false about their interpretation of the Koran?

i think leaving a power vacuum and killing 100s of 1000s of people, according to UN figures, is a huge reason.

as i understand it, the US and SA were secretly funding Bin ladens (and many others) Mujaheddin in the 80s, so had they kept out of it, the soviets might well of had more success....

We are not at war, we shouldnt be there and are making things far worse, let us support the Russians and let them sort out Syria, get Assad back in full power and then once the place is more stable, put pressure on Assad/Putin for a fairer more democratic Syria, because whatever he has done (pre civil war), he presided over a secular country and gays were not thrown off buildings/beheaded, unlike SA whom we have absolutely no problem supporting with weapons....

I agree that islamic extremism is as old as the hills but what has caused this recent upsurge? and we can look no further than Iraq/Libya/ Syria and Afghan

I have known plenty of devote Muslims and they dont go about killing people, IS have a false doctrine that needs to be challenged but if for whatever reason we cannot take action against Islamists when they turn up at our borders and are dobbed in by the community, then we are facing a losing battle.

i am also sceptical about all these attacks that have been stopped, at what level ie how serious were they? and how come we dont hear about the trials/deportations that surely would follow

nickice

mamba80 wrote:

nickice wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Imho ...... ISIS might say that but the truth is before our recent adventures in Iraq etc, we had nothing like the level of radicalisation in the west and it was the destabilisation of Afghanistan (with a big helping hand from the US) which breed Bin Laden.

Devil finds work for idle hands, so the depression in the 20's and 30s became fertile ground for Hitlers ideology, just as brutal as ISil, the destruction of Iraqs civilisation has provided the same, add in false interpretation of the the Quoran and predominately young men find an outlet for their frustrations.
yesterday US bombed and killed 20 Syrian civilians fleeing their town, how does that ease tensions?

Why do you think Putin is spending a fortune in syria, backing an unpopular leader? he understands that unless stability is bought back to that place, then radicalism will spread.

I don't think Western foreign policy has helped but only to the extent that a power vacuum was left in Iraq and Lybia for Islamic extremists to take over. I'd also add that the biggest terrorist attack in the West took place before invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it"s grossly unfair to blame the US for Bin Laden. Yes , they helped him in a proxy war against the Soviet Union but there was nothing they did in Afghanistan (in the 1980's) that Bin Laden said motivated 9/11.

As for the US bombing civilians, it's really easy for us to judge them but civilians always die in war as it's just so chaotic. The West, generally, don't deliberately target civilians as a policy (though, of course, some soldiers will.

Islamic extremism (and Wahabbism) is older than any Western intervention in the ME and Islamic extremists are now recruiting from the West and targeting countries all over the World.

By the way, what is false about their interpretation of the Koran?

i think leaving a power vacuum and killing 100s of 1000s of people, according to UN figures, is a huge reason.

as i understand it, the US and SA were secretly funding Bin ladens (and many others) Mujaheddin in the 80s, so had they kept out of it, the soviets might well of had more success....

We are not at war, we shouldnt be there and are making things far worse, let us support the Russians and let them sort out Syria, get Assad back in full power and then once the place is more stable, put pressure on Assad/Putin for a fairer more democratic Syria, because whatever he has done (pre civil war), he presided over a secular country and gays were not thrown off buildings/beheaded, unlike SA whom we have absolutely no problem supporting with weapons....

I agree that islamic extremism is as old as the hills but what has caused this recent upsurge? and we can look no further than Iraq/Libya/ Syria and Afghan

I have known plenty of devote Muslims and they dont go about killing people, IS have a false doctrine that needs to be challenged but if for whatever reason we cannot take action against Islamists when they turn up at our borders and are dobbed in by the community, then we are facing a losing battle.

i am also sceptical about all these attacks that have been stopped, at what level ie how serious were they? and how come we dont hear about the trials/deportations that surely would follow

OK, one more post, then I'm done.

The blame for the power vacuum lies squarely on the USA and its allies but the extremists behind ISIS were already there. So there's not direct blame in my opinion. Most Iraqis killed after the initial invasion were killed in sectarian violence not the USA. At the same time, I have a lot more sympathy for Iraqi Sunnis who joined ISIS to protect themselves from marauding Shia militias (who were drilling holes in Sunnis' heads) than I do for a European who joins primarily for religious reasons. Ironically, the person keeping a lid on Sunni/Shia violence was also a very violent man: Saddam Hussein.

I think Assad now has too much blood on his hands (at the same time a secular dictator seems to be the only one capable of protecting minorities like Christians) now and when it comes to indiscriminate bombing, the Russians really take the biscuit. The problem is that in countries like these, democracy often results in an Islamist regime (Gaza, Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the election and look what happened in Iraq when elections were held). The reality is that Iraq is three countries, not one, and its partitioning would have saved a lot of bloodshed.

I also know a lot of devout Muslims but there is no one correct interpretation. There has been too much respect given to people with illiberal values. Some values don't need to be respected.

mr_goo

An excellent interview with Adam Deen of Quilliam Foundation on Radio 5 Live this morning. Probably the only Muslim I've heard that has explained coherently the problems of extremism and the problem of the Quran. He admitted that the verses of the Quran do preach hate and death to non believers. And said that Muslims shouldn't say that it's a religion of peace. However he clearly explained why. It was written centuries ago and it's context is not for the modern world. And that is why we have extremism, because some take it at face value. He said it needs a reformation like the bible was 500 years ago with the New Testament.

If you can find it on iPlayer and listen. Very interesting stuff.

mamba80

nickice wrote:

OK, one more post, then I'm done.

The blame for the power vacuum lies squarely on the USA and its allies but the extremists behind ISIS were already there. So there's not direct blame in my opinion.

thats a shame!

no doubt they were (not in the numbers there is now though) but we let them out, but of course there has always been extremists, go back to the Olympic games in Munich!
But in deposing Saddam/Ghadafi and attempting to do the same with assad, we ve let the gene out of the bottle! and now we cant get it back in again.
and then there is the huge numbers of refugees these conflicts have caused, Europe is a liberal democracy and isnt going to protect its borders with machine guns and fences.

imposter2.0

Mr Goo wrote:

. And that is why we have extremism, because some take it at face value. He said it needs a reformation like the bible was 500 years ago with the New Testament.

That rings a bell...ah yes, page 1...

Imposter wrote:

Reformation...for what it's worth, christianity had one in the 16th century...

mr_goo

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

. And that is why we have extremism, because some take it at face value. He said it needs a reformation like the bible was 500 years ago with the New Testament.

That rings a bell...ah yes, page 1...

Imposter wrote:

Reformation...for what it's worth, christianity had one in the 16th century...

It's what I've said on here before but there's always a comeback from some.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

An excellent interview with Adam Deen of Quilliam Foundation on Radio 5 Live this morning. Probably the only Muslim I've heard that has explained coherently the problems of extremism and the problem of the Quran. He admitted that the verses of the Quran do preach hate and death to non believers. And said that Muslims shouldn't say that it's a religion of peace. However he clearly explained why. It was written centuries ago and it's context is not for the modern world. And that is why we have extremism, because some take it at face value. He said it needs a reformation like the bible was 500 years ago with the New Testament.

If you can find it on iPlayer and listen. Very interesting stuff.

I'll try and listen to that later - the Quilliam Foundation seem to know what they are talking about.

I think you've got the Christian Reformation a bit muddled. The New Testament is ~2000 years old; the Reformation was started by Martin Luther and his Ninety-five Theses in 1517.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

It was a reaction against the selling of papal indulgences - a sort of buy your way out of purgatory scheme - and other corruption in the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Fundamentalist Protestants are fairly hard-line conservative bunch.

imposter2.0

London Antifascists have an interesting take on it..

The fight against Daesh is an anti-fascist struggle, a working class international struggle. Daesh is not a symptom of Islam, it is a symptom of imperialism. If you want to see more terrorism on our streets, then it is only right that you support imperialism and the ruling classes such as the Tories who are directly responsible for Manchester. If you want to see Daesh eradicated from the face of the earth, then first you need to understand that internationalism is necessary to do so. It is important now and always to remember that the victims globally of Daesh are disproportionately Muslim. In the wake of these attacks, remember the international struggle and pay no heed to the reactionary dog whistle politics which call for the internment, deportation, and assimilation of Muslims into a racist and nationalist project.

mamba80

So Johnson says intel services have questions to answer!!!wtf! tories have been in power for 7 years... BJ is an utter disgrace.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/06/europ ... index.html

so much for best security services in the world... bin that one with we ve best football team and footie league.....

why cant these politicians ever take responsibility for their own fcuk ups? people have died and it very much looks like this last attack could have been prevented.

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

So Johnson says intel services have questions to answer!!!wtf! tories have been in power for 7 years...

why cant these politicians ever take responsibility for their own fcuk ups? people have died and it very much looks like this last attack could have been prevented.

So it seems like you've already undertaken your review and concluded that it's the Tories that are to blame. Much simpler than wasting time and effort on an independent review!

mamba80

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So Johnson says intel services have questions to answer!!!wtf! tories have been in power for 7 years...

why cant these politicians ever take responsibility for their own fcuk ups? people have died and it very much looks like this last attack could have been prevented.

So it seems like you've already undertaken your review and concluded that it's the Tories that are to blame. Much simpler than wasting time and effort on an independent review!

jeez, this isnt a disastrous football result! if a known jihadist who has been stopped going to Syria to fight, wants to be a terrorist (and you are told of this) turns up at your border and you let him in, unchecked unmonitored... then you dont need to wait 2 years for a fcuking review!
lets not go to the guy who lived in the UK and featured in the ch4 doc "jihadists next door" shall we?

i totally understand that unknown terrorists are extremely difficult to stop and if all 3 had been like this, then yes have a review....

But these attacks have happened under their watch... so yes (be it labour or Tory, they need to held to account) just as they bask in the glory of telling us how well they fund the sec serv and how brilliant they are of stopping all these other attacks, then they also have to take responsibility when things go wrong.

Seems to me, we ve believed our own BS.

But your point on waiting for the results a review..... like BJ has done? very quick to divert blame to the security services.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

An excellent interview with Adam Deen of Quilliam Foundation on Radio 5 Live this morning. Probably the only Muslim I've heard that has explained coherently the problems of extremism and the problem of the Quran. He admitted that the verses of the Quran do preach hate and death to non believers. And said that Muslims shouldn't say that it's a religion of peace. However he clearly explained why. It was written centuries ago and it's context is not for the modern world. And that is why we have extremism, because some take it at face value. He said it needs a reformation like the bible was 500 years ago with the New Testament.

If you can find it on iPlayer and listen. Very interesting stuff.

I'll try and listen to that later - the Quilliam Foundation seem to know what they are talking about.

I think you've got the Christian Reformation a bit muddled. The New Testament is ~2000 years old; the Reformation was started by Martin Luther and his Ninety-five Theses in 1517.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

It was a reaction against the selling of papal indulgences - a sort of buy your way out of purgatory scheme - and other corruption in the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Fundamentalist Protestants are fairly hard-line conservative bunch.

They may well be a fairly hard-line conservative bunch, but there is no interpretation of the bible* that says you can go around slaughtering people. Christianity's lack of suicide bombers doesn't derive from the Reformation - and it has to be said that Luther and the other reformers were far from immune to the allure of political power and consequently its abuses.
No, it goes right back to its origin: it was spread through the Roman empire from the bottom up by people who took seriously Jesus's sayings like "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek". But the price of success is that you get to be seen as a way to get ahead, and so political types find it a good vehicle, and the excesses and abuses of the crusades and the inquisition naturally follow, even though they are a pretty severe bending of what Christianity actually is.



*Go and read a good theology book if you want a discussion on what the difference is between the old and new testament, I don't have the time.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So Johnson says intel services have questions to answer!!!wtf! tories have been in power for 7 years...

why cant these politicians ever take responsibility for their own fcuk ups? people have died and it very much looks like this last attack could have been prevented.

So it seems like you've already undertaken your review and concluded that it's the Tories that are to blame. Much simpler than wasting time and effort on an independent review!

jeez, this isnt a disastrous football result! if a known jihadist who has been stopped going to Syria to fight, wants to be a terrorist (and you are told of this) turns up at your border and you let him in, unchecked unmonitored... then you dont need to wait 2 years for a fcuking review!
lets not go to the guy who lived in the UK and featured in the ch4 doc "jihadists next door" shall we?

i totally understand that unknown terrorists are extremely difficult to stop and if all 3 had been like this, then yes have a review....

But these attacks have happened under their watch... so yes (be it labour or Tory, they need to held to account) just as they bask in the glory of telling us how well they fund the sec serv and how brilliant they are of stopping all these other attacks, then they also have to take responsibility when things go wrong.

Seems to me, we ve believed our own BS.

But your point on waiting for the results a review..... like BJ has done? very quick to divert blame to the security services.

You know, maybe we should sack all the security forces and replace them with a bunch of random keyboard warriors - who clearly know much better how to do the job.

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

But your point on waiting for the results a review..... like BJ has done? very quick to divert blame to the security services.

I wasn't commenting on Bozza. He's a politician 2 days before a general election so can't be expected to talk any sense.

A review is needed - preferably behind closed doors to find out what went wrong, if indeed anything did go wrong. (Given the number of potential terrorists and the desire to maintain our "normal" lifestyles, it may simply be impossible to reduce the number of terrorist incidents to zero.) A public review simply to cast blame would be a waste of time.

There seems basically three "options":

1 - Intelligence services did their best given unrealistic political and/or financial constraints from the government.

2 - Intelligence services were asleep at the wheel and didn't do their job.

3 - A whole succession of individually reasonable actions resulted in the tragic outcome.

You've already decided 1. Bozza appears to have decided 2. I'm open minded as I don't know the facts.

And if the review takes 2 years then so be it. The terror threat will be around forever, so if it takes time to identify and fix any issues with the way the intelligence services work than so be it. It's better than doing nothing or engaging in short term opportunistic posturing.

john80

Twelve pages on and not really many solutions so here is a couple of observations.

- Why is it that every time a government looks to overrule the human rights of a minority for the benefit of the majority there is an outcry? Lets face it I am not likely to have the police come round and arrest me as I don't spend my time talking up the benefits of a caliphate and the merits of a holy war whilst viewing the bulk of society you inhabit to be infidels.
- Why is it that you can go on TV down a park talking about religious extremism and then be disrespectful to police officers who rightly pull you up for a search as they have a tip off that you have Islamic flags etc. on your person and face no sanction? This guy later went on to run people over, stab people all the while shouting that he was doing it for his family.
- Why is it that you can have around 11 years as a minimum of education in Manchester but still be so poorly integrated that you think it is a good idea to blow yourself up?

Whilst education and integration is the answer to a lot of the above. Sometimes the answer is for people to just be deported early. Am I really bothered about the rights of an Italian/Moroccan who has limited time in the UK but spouting nonsense which is very much against the views of the majority. These guys are not a minority group being subject to racism and therefore require our protection. They are a threat to the safety of others within the population.

When you come to a country you integrate, comply with their laws and customs or quite rightly you are not welcome. Given our customs are quite flexible then I am struggling to see why the removal of people with differing views is a difficult decision to make as the threshold would be extreme in this case. Lets face it we are not deporting people because they don't like Theresa May.

bompington

john80 wrote:

I am struggling to see why the removal of people with differing views is a difficult decision to make as the threshold would be extreme in this case. Lets face it we are not deporting people because they don't like Theresa May.

My views clearly differ from yours, so I think you should be removed from the country.

joe2008

john80 wrote:

Twelve pages on and not really many solutions so here is a couple of observations.

A solution for global terror within 12 pages of some random internet forum thread

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

I am struggling to see why the removal of people with differing views is a difficult decision to make as the threshold would be extreme in this case. Lets face it we are not deporting people because they don't like Theresa May.

My views clearly differ from yours, so I think you should be removed from the country.

I would not worry about it as in ten years time on current trajectory there will be a number of countries willing to take degree qualified engineers with such outlandish views as not thinking it is right to kill other people regardless of your particular beliefs or promise of 50 virgins. You should definitely focus on getting those guys removed. On the plus side as a rural resident this current crop of terrorism is unlikely to affect me or my kids.

So I will let London lead on this. What is the threshold. 1 attack a month? 1 a week? 1 a day? I don't want a extreme right wing government but if they attacks continue then support for hard line responses will harden and then this is what you will have. Can't beat a bit of preventative medicine as they say.

bompington

john80 wrote:

What is the threshold. 1 attack a month? 1 a week? 1 a day? I don't want a extreme right wing government but if they attacks continue then support for hard line responses will harden and then this is what you will have. Can't beat a bit of preventative medicine as they say.

The point of my previous post was that there is another threshold here - the threshold of how you decide who is enough of a risk. Anyone who's been to Syria? Anyone who flies an ISIS flag? Anyone who posts pro-ISIS stuff on FB? Anyone with a beard and brownish skin?

It's easy to sit and call for "preventative medicine" but unless you're willing to think about it a bit more logically - and to consider that people have rights that need respecting - then "extreme right wing" is in fact what you're advocating.

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

What is the threshold. 1 attack a month? 1 a week? 1 a day? I don't want a extreme right wing government but if they attacks continue then support for hard line responses will harden and then this is what you will have. Can't beat a bit of preventative medicine as they say.

The point of my previous post was that there is another threshold here - the threshold of how you decide who is enough of a risk. Anyone who's been to Syria? Anyone who flies an ISIS flag? Anyone who posts pro-ISIS stuff on FB? Anyone with a beard and brownish skin?

It's easy to sit and call for "preventative medicine" but unless you're willing to think about it a bit more logically - and to consider that people have rights that need respecting - then "extreme right wing" is in fact what you're advocating.

You would start with the claimed 3000 people on watch lists when the security services are apparently investigating 500 plots at any one time. Then you would ask how many hold a UK passport. The easiest to remove are the non UK passport holders. You look at what they do to either plan or radicalise and then frame the law to allow removal whilst preventing those following societal norms and existing laws are safe from removal. Wanting a caliphate within the UK, suggesting that terrorist acts are just or demanding the UK to adopt sharia on steroids style laws is a clear red line for the vast majority of UK citizens of all faiths/no faith. If this gets you half way then good. You can then start to focus on the harder problem of UK born or UK passport holders as the only likely form of solution will be through education. 3000 people is a ridiculous number of people to be watching at any one time with 20000 as a wider net. Drafting laws to deal with extremism of this nature is not really that demanding especially when we consider that no normal citizen is going to be prejudiced by a law of this nature. I don't really have a lot of time for those who think that good governance is too hard and therefore should not be tried. At least attempt to frame some laws before it is ruled out as a breach of our collective civil liberties as you might find the Muslim and non Muslim population of the UK have some common sense.

bompington

john80 wrote:

Wanting a...

So we include thought crimes then.

Do you seriously have any idea what the implications are when you punish people for what they think?

mr_goo

How is it that various police forces in the UK can liaise with their counterparts across Europe to impose travel bans on thousands of football hooligans and stop them at borders. Yet those on watch lists and suspected of extremist links and who pose a threat to security have managed to breach borders and security checks....? Just a thought.

Matthewfalle

Mr Goo wrote:

How is it that various police forces in the UK can liaise with their counterparts across Europe to impose travel bans on thousands of football hooligans and stop them at borders. Yet those on watch lists and suspected of extremist links and who pose a threat to security have managed to breach borders and security checks....? Just a thought.

How many of how many have "breached borders and security checks"? Or is this another Goo-ism?

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Twelve pages on and not really many solutions so here is a couple of observations.

- Why is it that every time a government looks to overrule the human rights of a minority for the benefit of the majority there is an outcry? Lets face it I am not likely to have the police come round and arrest me as I don't spend my time talking up the benefits of a caliphate and the merits of a holy war whilst viewing the bulk of society you inhabit to be infidels.
- Why is it that you can go on TV down a park talking about religious extremism and then be disrespectful to police officers who rightly pull you up for a search as they have a tip off that you have Islamic flags etc. on your person and face no sanction? This guy later went on to run people over, stab people all the while shouting that he was doing it for his family.
- Why is it that you can have around 11 years as a minimum of education in Manchester but still be so poorly integrated that you think it is a good idea to blow yourself up?

Whilst education and integration is the answer to a lot of the above. Sometimes the answer is for people to just be deported early. Am I really bothered about the rights of an Italian/Moroccan who has limited time in the UK but spouting nonsense which is very much against the views of the majority. These guys are not a minority group being subject to racism and therefore require our protection. They are a threat to the safety of others within the population.

When you come to a country you integrate, comply with their laws and customs or quite rightly you are not welcome. Given our customs are quite flexible then I am struggling to see why the removal of people with differing views is a difficult decision to make as the threshold would be extreme in this case. Lets face it we are not deporting people because they don't like Theresa May.

To answer your first point, human rights aren't human rights if they don't apply to everyone all of the time.
On the second point, you are free to go to your local park and spout almost any nonsense you want. There are already prohibitions on inciting violence for example but it is nigh on impossible to write legislation that restricts, say, calling for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in the UK, without significantly curtailing the rights of everyone else. Obviously people like Anjem Choudry got very good at sailing as close to the wind as possible.
Lastly, deportation is fine for foreign nationals but that sanction is little use against British citizens.

@bompington: agreed on most of that, but a quick Google found christiangunowner.com, whose home page has what appears to be a straight contradiction of turning the other cheek. Obviously that's a long way from an injunction to kill non-believers, but it shows how apparently committed believers are happy to ignore bits of Christian teaching that are inconvenient.

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

Wanting a...

So we include thought crimes then.

Do you seriously have any idea what the implications are when you punish people for what they think?

If you thought a caliphate was a great idea and everyone should practice your form of religion. If you thought that the UK population we infidels for not agreeing to your superior wisdom. If you thought that they must be punished for their wicked ways. If you thought it was a good idea to investigate the internet to find like minded individuals. If you then researched amongst this band of brothers and the internet the best methods to kill as many people as possible. You then went out and did it.

If you have the first five thoughts above then I would say you are a bit of a danger to society. Do you let them get to the sixth sentence? Go make an argument for this as your local MP and see how you fair.

john80

Most right minded individuals would thing that a third parties right to life (Article 2) and right to liberty and security (Article 5) would trump the right of a person to kill others. Claiming the rights from freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9), Freedom of expression (Article 10) and Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) are not really a defence in this scenario. As always the human rights act is a balance. If one parties view of their rights under an article removes another's rights then there needs to be a discussion about the validity of both parties rights and which takes priority. In the case of terrorism linked to extreme Muslim ideology, this is likely to lose in court.

So whilst human rights need to apply to everyone they are often contradictory and this is point I feel people miss with human rights by viewing it as their right in isolation of others.

TheBigBean

There's plenty of extreme views on this thread.