Are you trying to have an argument with me?
Did you even read the rest of my post?
yeah, my point being it's fairly common for people to start using religion for whatever they want
Folk in here might want a quick gander at the news about Qatar
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/saudi-bahrain-egypt-uae-qatar-terror/index.html
It comes amid heightened tensions between Gulf countries and their near-neighbour Iran. The Saudi statement accused Qatar of collaborating with "Iranian-backed terrorist groups" in its restive Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain.
From the BBC, a very interesting quote given how Trump was so eager Trump was to shift the focus from Saudi to Iran despite a lot of things not adding up on his visit.
Nicely put by Lucorave and I'm certainly victim to western media despite knowing how badly we are all manipulated by it even down to our bloody weather forcasts.
It is such a sad state we find ourselves in that we now have fellow countrymen believing they will be better off dead and in their sacrifice they will somehow do their cause good. Fundamentally this is a failing of education. Even the IRA guys wanted to survive their bombs, these poor unfortunates in actually believing the doctrine fed to them by whoever are always going to be difficult to stop without achieving some part of their goal.
There is no easy answer, not without a more serious attempt at reaching all corners of our populace with the message that all these religious beliefs are not only wrong but are and have always been a political means of control and subjugation. We're in need of a serious reformation, a reformation based in what can be proved, what we actually know now about the Universe and our part in it. Wether Creationist or Militant Jihadist they are all folk lacking in either a good education or a sound inquiring mind. The task ahead above everything has got to be about scientific enlightenment a la Prof Cox.
If God forbid it comes to large scale internment or ever increased prison population as a result of all this and whatever May is now planning, the fundamental thing that needs addressing is to throw doubt into every religious belief system on earth. It's no good us being all high minded, tolerant and inclusive on the one hand if by doing so we ignore the underlying ignorance, prejudice and fear that can be manipulated for whatever cause might seem appropriate at the time. I hate to say the word Re-education centre, but if it has to be that we are all to be held to one particular mindset, then we sure as hell ought to make sure everyone is on the same page, or it will go on forever.
From the BBC, a very interesting quote given how Trump was so eager Trump was to shift the focus from Saudi to Iran despite a lot of things not adding up on his visit.
The implications this move will have on the circa 11k US military personnel in Qatar will be interesting.
Good grief, I'll put it another way, why should religion have any bearing on how animals are slaughtered? Secular food?
Is that better?
And now I'm being accused of attacking people's religion, how funny, I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
mikewsmith - Member
Whats your point kimbers, is it what is expected that you reply to assure people are terrorists or being watched?
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
that is the conundrum isn't it. Is it the religion of using religion as the fuel to terror. It's at the crux of it, much as I dislike the way people follow religion the 2 things are need to be treated in the right way - attacking religion fuels the terror. Work out how to deal with the terrorists - despite a lot of loud shoutin and and grandstanding nothing has worked so far.
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
Maybe they had what they needed? It's one of the things about rolling news is now we get to hear from one person, it's unlikely you will hear from the people who dealt with the case though or what they did yet you have formed a judgement on what they did.
yeah, my point being it's fairly common for people to start using religion for whatever they want
Ah, no worries.
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
Maybe they did, if so what info is he going to offer? He's hardly going to say, oh yes, in a few years I'm going to run a few people over and knife some others.
Let's say they didn't but in future they thoroughly investigate every report. They find he's a self confessed Islamist. They find a kitchen cupboard with knives. They find he has a car.
He's commited no offence.
What then?
Internment? How will that play in the Muslim community?
....and once word gets round that every report results in some serious consiquence you get into the liklihood of Islamists reporting all the people in their local mosque as being Islamists to further foster mistrust. Crackdowns on Muslims is *exactly* what militant Islams wants.
They find he's a self confessed Islamist.
What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?
1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.
a person who believes strongly in Islam, especially one who believes that Islam should influence political systems
Maybe they had what they needed?
quite possibly but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working
about 1-30 in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08sks0t#play
also touches on the funding received from Saudi etc and the government surpressing investigation into that
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
I started the thread, it wasn't. It was primarily started to get the tasteless bickering out of the London/Manchester attack threads.
What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?
I once read a book called "The Islamist" by Ed Husain. From that I gathered 'Islamist' meant "Militant Extreme Violent Muslim" if it doesn't I'm using the word in the wrong context. (As is Ed.)
but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working
But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can't actually stop them doing anything
And we all saw the uproar over control orders - the same people now screaming that more police are needed to 'investigate' terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
I have nothing to hide but plenty to fear.
How about your bank details being accidentally leaked?
I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you're at it your bank statements please. You don't have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?
But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can't actually stop them doing anything
Speculation again. What was reported, what did they find? What did they conclude? What was the outcome? What happened between the report and now?
Come on you have all the answers
I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
And I'm amazed that some sheeple will so willingly give away their privacy.
Why should the government have carte blanche over private data? We look be in a democracy, not a totalitarian state. If your rather that, then please feel free to **** off to North Korea, they know how to deal with [s]suspected enemies of the state[/s] people who disagree with them there.
So, now you think we need 20,000 more police to investigate people, but you don't want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them 🙄
Oh dear. Didn't take long to find one.Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you're at it your bank statements please. You don't have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?
ninfan - Member
So, now you think we need more police to investigate people, but you dint want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them
it must be hard to make it through a day with so much confusion in there, maybe have a lie down. What can the Police, Security service etc do with a warrant at present? Do you actually know?
Oh dear. Didn't take long to find one.
Find one what? If you've nothing to hide I'm sure you'll be quite happy to share your browsing history with us, especially that half hour whilst your wife was out but you forgot to enable incognito mode...
[b]What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?[/b]
Simple for the armchair experts.
mitsumonkey - Member
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
Only the hard of thinking think this.
And we all saw the uproar over control orders - the same people now screaming that more police are needed to 'investigate' terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.
Are they?
Or are you projecting your screaming about everything at the rest of us?
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.flanagaj - Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Other than that state slipping too far right or left or being viewed as a soft target for whatever indiscretion of the moment that surfaces on someones agenda. God haven't you people tolerated enough intrusion, it's bad enough I can't go from A to B without being surveiled God knows how many times by CCTV or that I end up being charged for being in posession of a 'dangerous dog' thanks to the vigilance of a snoopy neighbour who's dog disagreed with mine on my own land. Or that if I travel at 3 mph over the limit I end up paying for a Government civil obedience course, or if I ride my m'cycle with the wind blowing over the bit where my curly locks used to be I get fined, never mind if I openly preach religious disagreement or talk out of turn about those with sexual preferences different to mine, or refuse to bake a particular kind of cake...flanagaj - Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse
Another aspect is giving all that capability to the state also hopes they remain competent in protecting (they also including the almost inevitable private sector contractors).
The recent wannacry problems show the flaws in this.
seosamh77 - Member
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.
Very true.
Usually the first steps are disarming the public, restricting free association, and clamping down on free speech. All of which are easy to do if first you can show that this is being done in response to a threat.
But I have been wondering about the nature of Muslim terrorism. They seem to eschew democracy yet are relying on democracy to achieve their ends, ie kill enough random people so that the public puts pressure on the politicians to change course. It just seems to rally the public behind the policies.
Surely it would be more effective if they were more precisely targetted? Aim at the political leaders they feel were oppressing them rather than random members of the public or blowing up a Tory convention like the Irish did. In other words behave as their predecessors, the assassins did.
Is there a strategy or is it just people exploding with frustration? (pun not intended).
A few years ago everyone was condemning the "Muslim community" for not doing enough, failing to condemn terrorism, turning a blind eye and more.
Now it seems like the "Muslim Community" [b]has[/b] been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.
Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?
Now it seems like the "Muslim Community" has been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?
based on??? Seriously what insight do you have to one of the 3 rough scenarios
They didn't bother?
They didn't have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?
They didn't bother?
They didn't have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?
whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks
they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.
What intervention do you want?
We're told Islamist should be "investigated" we're told there should be an "intervention".
Exactly what?
Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?
whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks
Well yes, but if he wants crediblity he has to say what action he wants taken against Islamic Militants who haven't committed a crime (yet).
The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that's any better than what is currently happening.
From an opinion piece in today's paper by Lord Carlile - former LiB Dem peer and most recently the independent scrutiniser of anti-terror legislation:
"Last Friday I attended a hustings meeting at which the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, spoke for the Labour Party. Incoherent and incomprehensible might be too generous a description of her performance. The notion that she could lead the Home Office should leave us all in frozen apprehension.
Mr Corbyn appears to believe, with extreme naïveté, that it is possible to negotiate with organisations which inspire the belief that it is desirable to bomb and knife women and children on a night out. This is extremely disappointing. I have known successive Labour home secretaries who understood the issue and acted on the merits."
Do we all feel safer now?
The question of what to do at home with people guilty of no crime is probably the most pointless. Either we make "religious in charge of a Quran" a crime or we have to actually prosecute people for committing offences. It's pretty tough to prove that someone who was looking at dodgy twitter/facebook/youtube stuff has intent to commit a terror attack until they take some steps towards actually DOING something.
The average pub/MTB forum is full of blowhard gobshites who reckon they could take on <INSERT PERSON/GROUP OF CHOICE> with one arm tied behind their backs and I assume the average mosque/madrassa/islamic social media site or forum is the same. If we locked everyone up who suggested they'd piss in someone's shoes, batter or murder someone, half of the UK would be locked up. Which, given some threads on here recently, may not be a bad thing.
The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that's any better than what is currently happening.
And exactly what is currently happening?
I've got a good idea - Why don't we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).
Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
In the absence of a crystal ball or a time machine, I'm afraid so.
Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?
Agreed, but if as it seems we are, at war with Islamic State, it would seem perfectly reasonable to intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat. Every other war, the nationals that remained here were subjected to just such treatment. I mean if you follow the logic using a WW2 analogy we'd have been allowing Germans to travel freely here throughout the duration without let or hindrance.
Not that it is an answer, but it is a Band-Aid, better than screening and watching which I assume is what is currently going on.
kerley - Member
I've got a good idea - Why don't we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
We need Tom...
[img] 
[/img]
The Belgian government tries their citizens in absentia when it's suspected that they have gone to fight for IS or another fundamentalist group. On their return they are able to appeal the conviction or, in some cases, retrospectively get some time off if they cooperate with intelligence services. Not that this has prevented Belgians going off to fight or get involved in terrorist attacks of course, so perhaps internment wouldn't work either.