This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It seems that Guantanamo Bay wasn't such a bad thing, after all...given the tendency for some of it's residents to vaporise themselves in the name of (radical) Islam. Human right's lobby - hang your heads in shame (again).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/isis-suicide-bomber-was-brito...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/isis-suicide-bomber-was-brito...
12
45
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Depends.
If you were innocent and happened to get sent there because someone in Pakistan/Afgan thought they could get a few thousand dollars by offering your name up to the CIA, then yes, it probably was a bad thing.
Depends.
If you were innocent and happened to get sent there because someone in Pakistan/Afgan thought they could get a few thousand dollars by offering your name up to the CIA, then yes, it probably was a bad thing.
31
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Does the possibility of years of extra judicial incarceration and torture with little explination or reason might radicalise somone enter your tiny brain? Hate breeds more hate.
Does the possibility of years of extra judicial incarceration and torture with little explination or reason might radicalise somone enter your tiny brain? Hate breeds more hate.
44
6
11
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Nope. Won't.
Human rights. Look at the words, think about what you're campaigning against, what these ideas were born of.
jk
> Human right's lobby - hang your heads in shame (again).
Nope. Won't.
Human rights. Look at the words, think about what you're campaigning against, what these ideas were born of.
jk
Post edited at 14:39
29
2
6
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
. Human right's lobby - hang your heads in shame (again).
yeah. I blame the bleeding hearts at the Daily Mail.
. Human right's lobby - hang your heads in shame (again).
yeah. I blame the bleeding hearts at the Daily Mail.
5
1
2
6
In reply to Neil Williams:
Except you can only blow yourself up once, so presumably this was his first time.
Except you can only blow yourself up once, so presumably this was his first time.
15
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Innocent chicken farmers have been jailed, and journalists who work/ed for Al Jazeera (sp), without charge or explanation. Was he radicalised before he went there, or because of what he experienced and who he met while there?
Human rights protect us all...
Innocent chicken farmers have been jailed, and journalists who work/ed for Al Jazeera (sp), without charge or explanation. Was he radicalised before he went there, or because of what he experienced and who he met while there?
Human rights protect us all...
14
2
In reply to Phil79: fun
Funny how that when British squaddies were accused no one thought that any Iraqi's would be lying for money lol
> Depends. If you were innocent and happened to get sent there because someone in Pakistan/Afgan thought they could get a few thousand dollars by offering your name up to the CIA, then yes, it probably was a bad thing.
Funny how that when British squaddies were accused no one thought that any Iraqi's would be lying for money lol
12
5
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Human rights.
Which you appear to enjoy to the full.
Your opening post does you little favour. Maybe something else you post will be more representative of your intelligence.
Human rights.
Which you appear to enjoy to the full.
Your opening post does you little favour. Maybe something else you post will be more representative of your intelligence.
Post edited at 14:55
5
4
2
In reply to Phil79:
Not a few thousand, $10 in this case. But, they probably paid less for kids,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ismail_Agha
OP:
It's odd, what a couple of years of being tortured can make someone do. Whoda thought they might want to hit back at the people who abused them?
If we decry the barbarity of radical nut jobs, then we need to show that we are orders of magnitude above them in the way we serve justice.
Not a few thousand, $10 in this case. But, they probably paid less for kids,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ismail_Agha
OP:
It's odd, what a couple of years of being tortured can make someone do. Whoda thought they might want to hit back at the people who abused them?
If we decry the barbarity of radical nut jobs, then we need to show that we are orders of magnitude above them in the way we serve justice.
20
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
*if* he had been tried on terrorism charges in an open court with 12 of his peers as a jury, then he might well still be inside now*.
Guantanamo Bay: epic fail
edited to add *assuming he was guilty of course
*if* he had been tried on terrorism charges in an open court with 12 of his peers as a jury, then he might well still be inside now*.
Guantanamo Bay: epic fail
edited to add *assuming he was guilty of course
Post edited at 14:59
9
1
4
1
In reply to dale1968:
>So blowing up muslims in Mosul is his way of repayment?
Which flavor of islam?
Team A, hate team B, more than team C, shocker. Or perhaps, 'religion used by idiots to justify all sorts of bad things'?
>So blowing up muslims in Mosul is his way of repayment?
Which flavor of islam?
Team A, hate team B, more than team C, shocker. Or perhaps, 'religion used by idiots to justify all sorts of bad things'?
5
1
1
In reply to dale1968:
"So blowing up muslims in Mosu"
lI'm more interested in if he blew his million quid
"So blowing up muslims in Mosu"
lI'm more interested in if he blew his million quid
Post edited at 15:14
6
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Some ? or one ?
> It seems that Guantanamo Bay wasn't such a bad thing, after all...given the tendency for some of it's residents to vaporise themselves
Some ? or one ?
2
1
In reply to ebdon:
Presumably you don't want people incarcerated because the security services jumped to conclusions.
So perhaps you shouldn't jump to them either...
> Does the possibility of years of extra judicial incarceration and torture with little explination or reason might radicalise somone enter your tiny brain? Hate breeds more hate.
Presumably you don't want people incarcerated because the security services jumped to conclusions.
So perhaps you shouldn't jump to them either...
4
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I don't think anyone believes that Guantanamo Bay was supposed to be about rehabilitation or de-radicalisation.
I noticed that this fellow did not choose to set off his suicide bomb on the streets of the UK, even though that must have been tempting to him. It certainly would have been a publicity coup for ISIS as well. Perhaps something that happened in Guantanamo Bay stopped him from doing that. I doubt we'll ever know.
I don't think anyone believes that Guantanamo Bay was supposed to be about rehabilitation or de-radicalisation.
I noticed that this fellow did not choose to set off his suicide bomb on the streets of the UK, even though that must have been tempting to him. It certainly would have been a publicity coup for ISIS as well. Perhaps something that happened in Guantanamo Bay stopped him from doing that. I doubt we'll ever know.
3
In reply to dread-i:
One way we could do this is by compensating them for their suffering when a court decides they have done nothing wrong. Rather than, say, chopping their heads off.
> If we decry the barbarity of radical nut jobs, then we need to show that we are orders of magnitude above them in the way we serve justice
One way we could do this is by compensating them for their suffering when a court decides they have done nothing wrong. Rather than, say, chopping their heads off.
Post edited at 16:46
4
2
In reply to ebdon:
He may well have been radicalised in prison, he may have been embittered towards the system that put him there but does that turn someone into a suicide bomber/terrorist? How many people wrongfully imprisoned for non-terrorist related offences have gone on to try to kill and maim innocents in revenge
> Does the possibility of years of extra judicial incarceration and torture with little explination or reason might radicalise somone enter your tiny brain? Hate breeds more hate.
He may well have been radicalised in prison, he may have been embittered towards the system that put him there but does that turn someone into a suicide bomber/terrorist? How many people wrongfully imprisoned for non-terrorist related offences have gone on to try to kill and maim innocents in revenge
2
1
In reply to Tyler: slightly different FEPOW, The railwayman is a great film and does show a different side to human nature and his treatment at the hand of the Japanese is nowhere comparable to Guantanamo
1
In reply to Tyler:
I was talking in more generall terms. I dont think theres any doubt this guy was a wrong-un and theres no excuse for murder but i stand by my point that generally brutalising people, no matter how mad or bad they are, does sweet fa to reduce terrorism. I would imagine Guantanamo has been a rallying cry to these groups and the net result has been to make the world a more dangerous place.
I was talking in more generall terms. I dont think theres any doubt this guy was a wrong-un and theres no excuse for murder but i stand by my point that generally brutalising people, no matter how mad or bad they are, does sweet fa to reduce terrorism. I would imagine Guantanamo has been a rallying cry to these groups and the net result has been to make the world a more dangerous place.
Post edited at 16:56
7
1
In reply to dale1968:
I'm not sure how this reply answers my question, is it meant to? What's a FEPOW? Who's treatment? What have the Japanese go to do with anything?
> slightly different FEPOW, The railwayman is a great film and does show a different side to human nature and his treatment at the hand of the Japanese is nowhere comparable to Guantanamo
I'm not sure how this reply answers my question, is it meant to? What's a FEPOW? Who's treatment? What have the Japanese go to do with anything?
1
3
So, despite...
Recent events surrounding Human Rights lawyer Phil Shiner (and his ilk) and the evidence that came out in the Historic Allegations Team enquiry of an endless-queue of Iraqi terrorists telling lies and hiding behind Human Rights Legislation to make false claims of brutality against British soldiers.
The general 'shining a light' on long-term, industrial scale abuse of Human Rights Legislation for the sole purpose of making bent-lawyers rich at tax-payers expense that this enquiry revealed.
The unfortunate by-product that this activity caused - the paying-out and releasing dangerous terrorists, allowing them to go back into the community and kill people.
The time-line (provided by his family) demonstrating that Abu-Zakariya al-Britani was radicalised long before he was detained at Guantanamo.
The strong suggestion that, in light of Abu-Zakariya al-Britani's martyrdom, numerous other British detainees at Guantanamo, who were friends of al-Britani, are in fact terrorists, given implausible explanations for their presence in a war zone (and subsequent banging of the Hman Rights Gong)
...you still stick to the tired, lazy argument that the Americans are the baddies al-Britani and his ilk should have been given the benefit of the doubt, released, paid-out and allowed to vaporise themselves in their local shopping centre.
You'll be telling me that Jerry Adams is innocent of terrorism offences next!
How odd.
Post edited at 17:16
9
14
In reply to Tyler:
Wasn't meant to answer your question, I am just pointing out that not everyone who's been treated inhumanly takes a path that leads to the deaths of others, you can google or read a book or watch a very good film
Wasn't meant to answer your question, I am just pointing out that not everyone who's been treated inhumanly takes a path that leads to the deaths of others, you can google or read a book or watch a very good film
3
In reply to ebdon:
There was no indication that you were talking in general terms given you were replying to the OP about a specific case and a specific individual. Guantanamo may have been a rallying cry but there were many rallying cries before this, not that that's a defence for it.
> I was talking in more generall terms. I dont think theres any doubt this guy was a wrong-un and theres no excuse for murder but i stand by my point that generally brutalising people, no matter how mad or bad they are, does sweet fa to reduce terrorism. I would imagine Guantanamo has been a rallying cry to these groups and the net result has been to make the world a more dangerous place.
There was no indication that you were talking in general terms given you were replying to the OP about a specific case and a specific individual. Guantanamo may have been a rallying cry but there were many rallying cries before this, not that that's a defence for it.
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Do you accept that Guantanamo created a lot of scope for this sort of stuff though? If it had followed national and international law with a high degree of transparency then the scope for both real and malicious cases would have been significantly reduced reducing these unfortunate by-products you cite.
Just doing what you want in the face of the rules rarely pays off in the long run, far from it...
> The unfortunate by-product that this activity caused - the paying-out and releasing dangerous terrorists, allowing them to go back into the community and kill people.
Do you accept that Guantanamo created a lot of scope for this sort of stuff though? If it had followed national and international law with a high degree of transparency then the scope for both real and malicious cases would have been significantly reduced reducing these unfortunate by-products you cite.
Just doing what you want in the face of the rules rarely pays off in the long run, far from it...
6
2
In reply to wintertree:
Not really. Sure, some of these people were further radicalised during their stay at Guantanamo, but most were radicalised when they travelled to Iraq / Afghanistan to fight, in the first place - long before their incarceration.
As has been seen repeatedly with terrorism, Gerry Adams (and other IRA leaders) being a good example, transparency and international law isn't successful when dealing with terrorists. There is rarely enough evidence to convict them in a court of law; the physical evidence is generally destroyed in the bomb-blast and witness are usually too scared or too dead to turn up in court and give testimony.
Which begs the question - do we incarcerate people who you believe to be terrorists without enough evidence to convict them in a court - or do leave them free to blow stuff up?
As has been seen with this latest case, despite the lack of 'strong enough for court' evidence, many of the British convicts at Guantanamo were terrorists and locking them away for years on end undoubtedly saved lives.
It's worth nothing that there wan't enough evidence to convict any of the 911 attackers, until they actually committed mass murder.
Not really. Sure, some of these people were further radicalised during their stay at Guantanamo, but most were radicalised when they travelled to Iraq / Afghanistan to fight, in the first place - long before their incarceration.
As has been seen repeatedly with terrorism, Gerry Adams (and other IRA leaders) being a good example, transparency and international law isn't successful when dealing with terrorists. There is rarely enough evidence to convict them in a court of law; the physical evidence is generally destroyed in the bomb-blast and witness are usually too scared or too dead to turn up in court and give testimony.
Which begs the question - do we incarcerate people who you believe to be terrorists without enough evidence to convict them in a court - or do leave them free to blow stuff up?
As has been seen with this latest case, despite the lack of 'strong enough for court' evidence, many of the British convicts at Guantanamo were terrorists and locking them away for years on end undoubtedly saved lives.
It's worth nothing that there wan't enough evidence to convict any of the 911 attackers, until they actually committed mass murder.
4
14
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
'It's worth nothing that there wan't enough evidence to convict any of the 911 attackers, until they actually committed mass murder.'
You don't know that. The issue with 9/11 is that they were barely on the radar; had the FBI/CIA reacted more proactively to the disconnected strange reports that they were receiving then *maybe* they could have been rounded up and *maybe* charged with terrorist offences. We'll never know.
Fact of the matter, if we start locking up and torturing people because we *think* they may be wrong 'uns, but without any due process or checks and balances, then one day those people will be us. There will always be crime, there will always be terrorism; we have to balance the fact that we know they exist with the fact that you can't lock up everybody just on a hunch.
'It's worth nothing that there wan't enough evidence to convict any of the 911 attackers, until they actually committed mass murder.'
You don't know that. The issue with 9/11 is that they were barely on the radar; had the FBI/CIA reacted more proactively to the disconnected strange reports that they were receiving then *maybe* they could have been rounded up and *maybe* charged with terrorist offences. We'll never know.
Fact of the matter, if we start locking up and torturing people because we *think* they may be wrong 'uns, but without any due process or checks and balances, then one day those people will be us. There will always be crime, there will always be terrorism; we have to balance the fact that we know they exist with the fact that you can't lock up everybody just on a hunch.
Post edited at 19:31
11
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Like many other 'clean skins', the 911 attackers were specifically selected because they were virtually unknown, their behaviour was innocuous and the authorities were unlikely to turn their full attention to them. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that the FBI could have convicted them if they had been able to heed the almost-invisible warning signs (the same could be said for the 7/7 attacks, Sydney, Paris, Brussels etc) but it is CERTAIN that those attackers would have been unable to commit mass murder if they were incercerated in the first place.
It's not true to say that the British Guantanamo inmates were locked away because of what was **thought**. They were locked away because they were found associating with Jihadists in a war zone and were therefore **strongly suspected**and as can be seen by today's lead article in the Telegraph, many have continued their terrorist activities now that they are free.
As for the argument that 'one day this will be us' - my advice to avoid being mistaken for a terrorist and incarcerated: don't travel to war zones and don't hang about with known terrorists...and you'll be fine!
Like many other 'clean skins', the 911 attackers were specifically selected because they were virtually unknown, their behaviour was innocuous and the authorities were unlikely to turn their full attention to them. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that the FBI could have convicted them if they had been able to heed the almost-invisible warning signs (the same could be said for the 7/7 attacks, Sydney, Paris, Brussels etc) but it is CERTAIN that those attackers would have been unable to commit mass murder if they were incercerated in the first place.
It's not true to say that the British Guantanamo inmates were locked away because of what was **thought**. They were locked away because they were found associating with Jihadists in a war zone and were therefore **strongly suspected**and as can be seen by today's lead article in the Telegraph, many have continued their terrorist activities now that they are free.
As for the argument that 'one day this will be us' - my advice to avoid being mistaken for a terrorist and incarcerated: don't travel to war zones and don't hang about with known terrorists...and you'll be fine!
8
12
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/17-british-guantanamo-detainees-20m-compensation-fund-now/
Fancy 'going on holiday' (to Afghanistan) with this lot?!
Do you honestly think they're not involved in terrorism?
If there isn't enough evidence to convict them, how do you suggest society deals with them...and who takes the blame when they commit an atrocity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/17-british-guantanamo-detainees-20m-compensation-fund-now/
Fancy 'going on holiday' (to Afghanistan) with this lot?!
Do you honestly think they're not involved in terrorism?
If there isn't enough evidence to convict them, how do you suggest society deals with them...and who takes the blame when they commit an atrocity?
Post edited at 20:08
6
4
In reply to Tyler:
You might want to look into how people can become radicalised in UK jails because of who they meet there, how it's recognised as something which can happen when putting dangerous people (from a terrorism perspective) into prison.
Fundamentally, people become radicalised because of their psychological vulnerabilities, but being held captive while innocent could have been used as one of a few ways of giving him the idea that 'the west' was against Muslims, by anybody seeking to radicalise him.
> He may well have been radicalised in prison, he may have been embittered towards the system that put him there but does that turn someone into a suicide bomber/terrorist? How many people wrongfully imprisoned for non-terrorist related offences have gone on to try to kill and maim innocents in revenge
You might want to look into how people can become radicalised in UK jails because of who they meet there, how it's recognised as something which can happen when putting dangerous people (from a terrorism perspective) into prison.
Fundamentally, people become radicalised because of their psychological vulnerabilities, but being held captive while innocent could have been used as one of a few ways of giving him the idea that 'the west' was against Muslims, by anybody seeking to radicalise him.
Post edited at 19:58
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
What about the terrorists who cleverly lead double lives?
I've learnt of a few Asians being sent to Guantanamo Bay because of their associates, while they've been innocent and found to not have anything linking them to terrorism before being released.
> As for the argument that 'one day this will be us' - my advice to avoid being mistaken for a terrorist and incarcerated: don't travel to war zones and don't hang about with known terrorists...and you'll be fine!
What about the terrorists who cleverly lead double lives?
I've learnt of a few Asians being sent to Guantanamo Bay because of their associates, while they've been innocent and found to not have anything linking them to terrorism before being released.
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I recommend "The Reluctant Fundamentalist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reluctant_Fundamentalist
I recommend "The Reluctant Fundamentalist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reluctant_Fundamentalist
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Not what was suggested on the radio today.
First of all I recommend you read "The future of political Islam" by ex-CIA Graham E Fuller for a detailed account of the involvement of America in the Middle East.
Secondly people are human and even human rights lawyer turn bad. Does that then mean that we should have no human rights? That we can bang up and torture who we like on a whim? Is that the sort of society that you want?
Yes our man blew himself up and got compensation. I can understand the outrage at that but that should in no way be used to support torture or the remove of citizens rights. You don't put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.
> The time-line (provided by his family) demonstrating that Abu-Zakariya al-Britani was radicalised long before he was detained at Guantanamo.
Not what was suggested on the radio today.
> ...you still stick to the tired, lazy argument that the Americans are the baddies al-Britani and his ilk should have been given the benefit of the doubt, released, paid-out and allowed to vaporise themselves in their local shopping centre.You'll be telling me that Jerry Adams is innocent of terrorism offences next! How odd.
First of all I recommend you read "The future of political Islam" by ex-CIA Graham E Fuller for a detailed account of the involvement of America in the Middle East.
Secondly people are human and even human rights lawyer turn bad. Does that then mean that we should have no human rights? That we can bang up and torture who we like on a whim? Is that the sort of society that you want?
Yes our man blew himself up and got compensation. I can understand the outrage at that but that should in no way be used to support torture or the remove of citizens rights. You don't put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.
10
2
In reply to Tyler:
Far East Prisoner of War. People treated with a level of barbarism far in excess of what anyone in Guantanamo could even imagine.
> I'm not sure how this reply answers my question, is it meant to? What's a FEPOW? Who's treatment? What have the Japanese go to do with anything?
Far East Prisoner of War. People treated with a level of barbarism far in excess of what anyone in Guantanamo could even imagine.
4
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Agree completely. However parasites like Shiner bring the whole idea of Human Rights into disrepute. I'd advocate parachuting him into a Daesh stronghold as punishment, (or failing that a few years inside), just to ensure others realise how damaging his actions were to the ideal of Human Rights.
Agree completely. However parasites like Shiner bring the whole idea of Human Rights into disrepute. I'd advocate parachuting him into a Daesh stronghold as punishment, (or failing that a few years inside), just to ensure others realise how damaging his actions were to the ideal of Human Rights.
5
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
>First of all I recommend you read "The future of political Islam" by ex-CIA Graham E Fuller for a detailed account of the involvement of America in the Middle East.
If we're recommending books, then can I suggest "No good men among the living".
It details life in Afghanistan and how the warlords played the US and coalition to gain power and influence.
>First of all I recommend you read "The future of political Islam" by ex-CIA Graham E Fuller for a detailed account of the involvement of America in the Middle East.
If we're recommending books, then can I suggest "No good men among the living".
It details life in Afghanistan and how the warlords played the US and coalition to gain power and influence.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
They had internment in Northern Ireland at one point, and it was a failure that increased support for the IRA.
They had internment in Northern Ireland at one point, and it was a failure that increased support for the IRA.
5
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Mr Walrus
It would be nice to see you in an orange boiler suit ( xxxl )
Albert T
Mr Walrus
It would be nice to see you in an orange boiler suit ( xxxl )
Albert T
6
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
No. I am an advocate of human rights, but not thr Human Rights Act...i'm sure we can find a way of protecting peoples rights without persecuting squaddies, chasing ambulances and turning terrorists and lawyers into millionaires at public expense.
If you're not in favour of incarcerating the likes of al-Britani, people who the authorities know to be terrorists but don't have sufficent evidence to prosecute, please suggest an alternative course of action.
Its all well and good banging the human Rights drum, but what would you do with someone who wants to commit an atrocity but cant be prosecuted?
No. I am an advocate of human rights, but not thr Human Rights Act...i'm sure we can find a way of protecting peoples rights without persecuting squaddies, chasing ambulances and turning terrorists and lawyers into millionaires at public expense.
If you're not in favour of incarcerating the likes of al-Britani, people who the authorities know to be terrorists but don't have sufficent evidence to prosecute, please suggest an alternative course of action.
Its all well and good banging the human Rights drum, but what would you do with someone who wants to commit an atrocity but cant be prosecuted?
Post edited at 23:59
4
7
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
It would seem that the exact opposite is true. By having negotiations with the Republican leadership, the peace and prosperity that now exists in Northern Ireland is a far cry from what it was in the 70's and 80's. It even led to a known IRA activist in Martin McGuiness becoming good friends with the Reverend Ian Paisley, who were known in Stormont as "The Chuckle Brothers"!
Would you please provide the evidence that he is not. I will then provide you with evidence that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barrack Obama, Margeret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron and are also terrorists. Or is that alright because they are "our" terrorists?
When it comes to the troubles in the Middle East, who do you want to blame? ISIS? Al Queda? America? Or do we go further? The creation of Israel? The ludicrous division of nations by the British? The Ottoman Empire? The Crusades? Mohamed? The Romans? The Greeks, The Egyptians?
Check this out:
http://www.ancient.eu/war/
It's time that the human race stopped massacring each other and learned to live together. To me this seems even more of an imperative given that our technology is by far outpacing our psychology.
When it comes to your OP, as others have pointed out, if you start locking people up, torturing and killing them with no due process, don't be surprised when they come for you and yours and the democracy and Human Rights that you seem to find so inconvenient vanishes before your eyes.
> As has been seen repeatedly with terrorism, Gerry Adams (and other IRA leaders) being a good example, transparency and international law isn't successful when dealing with terrorists.
It would seem that the exact opposite is true. By having negotiations with the Republican leadership, the peace and prosperity that now exists in Northern Ireland is a far cry from what it was in the 70's and 80's. It even led to a known IRA activist in Martin McGuiness becoming good friends with the Reverend Ian Paisley, who were known in Stormont as "The Chuckle Brothers"!
> You'll be telling me that Jerry Adams is innocent of terrorism offences next!
Would you please provide the evidence that he is not. I will then provide you with evidence that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barrack Obama, Margeret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron and are also terrorists. Or is that alright because they are "our" terrorists?
When it comes to the troubles in the Middle East, who do you want to blame? ISIS? Al Queda? America? Or do we go further? The creation of Israel? The ludicrous division of nations by the British? The Ottoman Empire? The Crusades? Mohamed? The Romans? The Greeks, The Egyptians?
Check this out:
http://www.ancient.eu/war/
It's time that the human race stopped massacring each other and learned to live together. To me this seems even more of an imperative given that our technology is by far outpacing our psychology.
When it comes to your OP, as others have pointed out, if you start locking people up, torturing and killing them with no due process, don't be surprised when they come for you and yours and the democracy and Human Rights that you seem to find so inconvenient vanishes before your eyes.
Post edited at 01:45
4
5
In reply to Hugh J:
There you go again...
I'd settle for a Porsche 911.
> It's time that the human race stopped massacring each other and learned to live together.
There you go again...
I'd settle for a Porsche 911.
In reply to Big Ger:
I see you're not aiming as high anymore . . . I thought it was a Veyron?
> There you go again...I'd settle for a Porsche 911.
I see you're not aiming as high anymore . . . I thought it was a Veyron?
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Interesting point. The human rights act being in essence a legal framework to ensure 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. Thus to up hold those human rights.
1. If you have no evidence to incarcerate someone you suspect of terrorist activity then you don't incarcerate them. You may keep a close eye on them, you may even hold them for a limited period under suspicion (it isn't hard to do). What you may not do is torture and humiliate them that just does no one any good.
2. Generally speaking that last paragraph could cover almost anyone. Time and again at work I hear people who are going to "kill" such and such a person or "burn" something down. For 99% of the time they don't they are just sounding off. So merely wanting to do something isn't the same as actively plotting to do it. We have measures in place to stop people who actively work to commit atrocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts) but obviously you can not catch everybody.
Interesting point. The human rights act being in essence a legal framework to ensure 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. Thus to up hold those human rights.
> If you're not in favour of incarcerating the likes of al-Britani, people who the authorities know to be terrorists but don't have sufficent evidence to prosecute, please suggest an alternative course of action.Its all well and good banging the human Rights drum, but what would you do with someone who wants to commit an atrocity but cant be prosecuted?
1. If you have no evidence to incarcerate someone you suspect of terrorist activity then you don't incarcerate them. You may keep a close eye on them, you may even hold them for a limited period under suspicion (it isn't hard to do). What you may not do is torture and humiliate them that just does no one any good.
2. Generally speaking that last paragraph could cover almost anyone. Time and again at work I hear people who are going to "kill" such and such a person or "burn" something down. For 99% of the time they don't they are just sounding off. So merely wanting to do something isn't the same as actively plotting to do it. We have measures in place to stop people who actively work to commit atrocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts) but obviously you can not catch everybody.
9
2
In reply to Hugh J:
The big difference between the IRA and ISIS is that the IRA sough an achievable goal and were open to negotiation and compromise, thus the (almost defunct) power sharing deal and an end to home rule in return for putting weapons beyond use, letting a load of murderers out of gaol and ceasing IRA operations (although they haven't really ceased). Overall, fair enough...but a bitter pill to swallow for those who were maimed and murdered by the IRA.
ISIS's stated objective is to re-draw the world map by uniting North Africa and Southern Europe under the rule of an medieval-esq Islamic Caliph and return it to the dark ages - as they have done in Iraq and Syria. They have specifically stated that they will not negotiate and they will not stop killing people until they achieve their aim.
Unlike Ireland, no compromise is on offer - your suggestion that because we successfully negotiated with the IRA we should follow a similar tack with ISIS is flawed.
That said, i'd be interested to know what negotiation you suggest we should carry - offer them Spain if the agree to pack in the suicide attacks? Allow them to continue throwing homosexuals off building in return for a power sharing deal with Assad? I'm intrigued.
With regards to Adams - you seem to be missing the point of the thread - which is 'what should we do with dangerous terrorists, when we don't have the evidence to convict them' - al Britain being a good example because he was detained at Guantanamo, never charged, but his recent behaviour would suggest that he was indeed an extremist.
Clearly, there isn't enough evidence to convict Adam of terrorist offences, if there was he'd be in gaol (or released under the GF agreement) - but are you honestly suggesting that he wasn't involved in terrorism?
I've offered no defence for Bush and co, nor would I.
With regards to my OP. I ask, once again, can anyone propose an alternative method for dealing with al Britani and his ilk that wouldn't run the risk of innocent people getting vaporised while they're waiting at the bus stop?
For all the hand-wringing and outrage, no-one has suggested a method of dealing with these lunatics that is as effective as giving them an orange jumpsuit and an extended trip to Cuba.
The big difference between the IRA and ISIS is that the IRA sough an achievable goal and were open to negotiation and compromise, thus the (almost defunct) power sharing deal and an end to home rule in return for putting weapons beyond use, letting a load of murderers out of gaol and ceasing IRA operations (although they haven't really ceased). Overall, fair enough...but a bitter pill to swallow for those who were maimed and murdered by the IRA.
ISIS's stated objective is to re-draw the world map by uniting North Africa and Southern Europe under the rule of an medieval-esq Islamic Caliph and return it to the dark ages - as they have done in Iraq and Syria. They have specifically stated that they will not negotiate and they will not stop killing people until they achieve their aim.
Unlike Ireland, no compromise is on offer - your suggestion that because we successfully negotiated with the IRA we should follow a similar tack with ISIS is flawed.
That said, i'd be interested to know what negotiation you suggest we should carry - offer them Spain if the agree to pack in the suicide attacks? Allow them to continue throwing homosexuals off building in return for a power sharing deal with Assad? I'm intrigued.
With regards to Adams - you seem to be missing the point of the thread - which is 'what should we do with dangerous terrorists, when we don't have the evidence to convict them' - al Britain being a good example because he was detained at Guantanamo, never charged, but his recent behaviour would suggest that he was indeed an extremist.
Clearly, there isn't enough evidence to convict Adam of terrorist offences, if there was he'd be in gaol (or released under the GF agreement) - but are you honestly suggesting that he wasn't involved in terrorism?
I've offered no defence for Bush and co, nor would I.
With regards to my OP. I ask, once again, can anyone propose an alternative method for dealing with al Britani and his ilk that wouldn't run the risk of innocent people getting vaporised while they're waiting at the bus stop?
For all the hand-wringing and outrage, no-one has suggested a method of dealing with these lunatics that is as effective as giving them an orange jumpsuit and an extended trip to Cuba.
Post edited at 07:15
5
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Strong suspicion is not and will not be legitimate grounds for the state depriving someone of the freedom or life. Ideas like this pose far greater threat to you and me than the people you fear. They will be resisted.
jk
> It's not true to say that the British Guantanamo inmates were locked away because of what was **thought**. They were locked away because they were found associating with Jihadists in a war zone and were therefore **strongly suspected**
Strong suspicion is not and will not be legitimate grounds for the state depriving someone of the freedom or life. Ideas like this pose far greater threat to you and me than the people you fear. They will be resisted.
jk
6
5
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
'With regards to my OP. I ask, once again, can anyone propose an alternative method for dealing with al Britani and his ilk that wouldn't run the risk of innocent people getting vaporised while they're waiting at the bus stop?'
1) No-one will ever be able to guarantee any of us won't be vaporised at a bus stop, because the world will always contain its share of inadequates and misfits who will jump on some violent bandwagon or other. Fortunately the risk remains pretty small for most of us. 2) The best methodology is to continue to develop a stable, equitable state governed by the rule of laws that apply equally to all, where all communities feel equally at home and valued; where all members feel they have something valuable to lose. Then you have a much greater chance of receiving intelligence about July 7 bombers, the would-be shoe bomber, this latest dimwit and any others who may be out there, before they get a chance to do bad things. They all had parents, relatives and friends who could and should have shopped them.
'With regards to my OP. I ask, once again, can anyone propose an alternative method for dealing with al Britani and his ilk that wouldn't run the risk of innocent people getting vaporised while they're waiting at the bus stop?'
1) No-one will ever be able to guarantee any of us won't be vaporised at a bus stop, because the world will always contain its share of inadequates and misfits who will jump on some violent bandwagon or other. Fortunately the risk remains pretty small for most of us. 2) The best methodology is to continue to develop a stable, equitable state governed by the rule of laws that apply equally to all, where all communities feel equally at home and valued; where all members feel they have something valuable to lose. Then you have a much greater chance of receiving intelligence about July 7 bombers, the would-be shoe bomber, this latest dimwit and any others who may be out there, before they get a chance to do bad things. They all had parents, relatives and friends who could and should have shopped them.
11
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
To be honest, I'm far more in fear of the toxic rhetoric of my own countryman that tries to stigmatise whole swathes of the population (possibly because they have fundamentalist beards ?) and what it does for British society than I am about the odd nut job blowing me up.
Hell I'm more worried about being knocked off my bike than being blown up by a nut job.
To be honest, I'm far more in fear of the toxic rhetoric of my own countryman that tries to stigmatise whole swathes of the population (possibly because they have fundamentalist beards ?) and what it does for British society than I am about the odd nut job blowing me up.
Hell I'm more worried about being knocked off my bike than being blown up by a nut job.
8
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
The only solution is to try them in a properly convened court of law, open to the scrutiny of everyone. Anything less and they win.
> [...]With regards to my OP. I ask, once again, can anyone propose an alternative method for dealing with al Britani and his ilk that wouldn't run the risk of innocent people getting vaporised while they're waiting at the bus stop?For all the hand-wringing and outrage, no-one has suggested a method of dealing with these lunatics that is as effective as giving them an orange jumpsuit and an extended trip to Cuba.
The only solution is to try them in a properly convened court of law, open to the scrutiny of everyone. Anything less and they win.
6
In reply to GrahamD:
Funny how people worry about Islamic terrorists but overlook the odd bombing and a couple of shootings closer to home.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-39049459
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/belfast-police-officer-inju...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/13/northern-ireland-shooting-l...
Funny how people worry about Islamic terrorists but overlook the odd bombing and a couple of shootings closer to home.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-39049459
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/belfast-police-officer-inju...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/13/northern-ireland-shooting-l...
2
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Which people?
> Funny how people worry about Islamic terrorists but overlook the odd bombing and a couple of shootings closer to home
Which people?
1
In reply to Tyler:
Me: Funny how people worry about Islamic terrorists but overlook the odd bombing and a couple of shootings closer to home
Tyler: Which people?
People who start threads or post on UKC about ISIS, Islamic fundamentalism or the war on terror type themes.
In contrast I don't think the two shootings or the bombing I linked to produced any interest on UKC.
Me: Funny how people worry about Islamic terrorists but overlook the odd bombing and a couple of shootings closer to home
Tyler: Which people?
People who start threads or post on UKC about ISIS, Islamic fundamentalism or the war on terror type themes.
In contrast I don't think the two shootings or the bombing I linked to produced any interest on UKC.
Post edited at 14:17
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Nor do most Islamist terrorist attacks in Iraq but there were some peculiarities about this one wouldn't you say? Raises some interesting questions?
Maybe you're correct and we should probably assume that anyone commenting on a topic is overlooking everything else that goes on in the world.
> People who start threads or post on UKC about ISIS, Islamic fundamentalism or the war on terror type themes.In contrast I don't think the two shootings or the bombing I linked to produced any interest on UKC.
Nor do most Islamist terrorist attacks in Iraq but there were some peculiarities about this one wouldn't you say? Raises some interesting questions?
Maybe you're correct and we should probably assume that anyone commenting on a topic is overlooking everything else that goes on in the world.
Post edited at 14:26
3
In reply to nastyned:
Very true.
> They had internment in Northern Ireland at one point, and it was a failure that increased support for the IRA.
Very true.
In reply to Tyler:
Based on post and thread count, the "UKC hive mind" does seem to be overlooking terrorist activity within the UK.
Based on post and thread count, the "UKC hive mind" does seem to be overlooking terrorist activity within the UK.
1
1
1
In reply to Tyler:
> Why is that?
Stupidity.> Why haven't you?
I was waiting to bring it up on one of the many Islamic terrorist threads.
1
In reply to jkarran:
So, 'the state' was wrong to incarcerate al-Britani?
And if so, how would you justify this to the family of the people he killed with his suicide bomb?
I can understand the principles of opposing incarceration without enough evidence to charge someone, but, as al-Britani has demonstrated, failure to take this kind of action will lead to people being murdered...and these murders could have been prevented.
Once again, can you propose an alternative method of dealing with thee people?
> Strong suspicion is not and will not be legitimate grounds for the state depriving someone of the freedom or life.
So, 'the state' was wrong to incarcerate al-Britani?
And if so, how would you justify this to the family of the people he killed with his suicide bomb?
I can understand the principles of opposing incarceration without enough evidence to charge someone, but, as al-Britani has demonstrated, failure to take this kind of action will lead to people being murdered...and these murders could have been prevented.
Once again, can you propose an alternative method of dealing with thee people?
Post edited at 15:18
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Do you refer to his incarceration without charge in Guantanamo? If so: Yes.
I have no problem with people being held for a reasonable period for investigation but after that they should be charged and tried or released. Likewise, I have no problem with people under suspicion where insufficient evidence of criminality exists to secure a conviction remaining under surveillance until such time as they are deemed not to be a threat or sufficient evidence is obtained to secure a conviction. Interment without charge is deeply counterproductive.
jk
> So, 'the state' was wrong to incarcerate al-Britani?
Do you refer to his incarceration without charge in Guantanamo? If so: Yes.
I have no problem with people being held for a reasonable period for investigation but after that they should be charged and tried or released. Likewise, I have no problem with people under suspicion where insufficient evidence of criminality exists to secure a conviction remaining under surveillance until such time as they are deemed not to be a threat or sufficient evidence is obtained to secure a conviction. Interment without charge is deeply counterproductive.
jk
4
5
In reply to jkarran:
In this case it would have been deeply productive...because he wouldn't have been able to murder anybody else.
> Do you refer to his incarceration without charge in Guantanamo? If so: Yes.I have no problem with people being held for a reasonable period for investigation but after that they should be charged and tried or released. Likewise, I have no problem with people under suspicion where insufficient evidence of criminality exists to secure a conviction remaining under surveillance until such time as they are deemed not to be a threat or sufficient evidence is obtained to secure a conviction. Interment without charge is deeply counterproductive.jk
In this case it would have been deeply productive...because he wouldn't have been able to murder anybody else.
4
1
In reply to jkarran:
Yes - was the state wrong to incarcerate al-Britani without charge?
Interesting that you've suggested that one option would be increased surveillance, given the resistance that pro-Human Rights Act groups and 'the left' have generally displayed to this, in the name of Article 8 (the right to privacy).
Whilst I agree that this would be a good thing, it's still a risky option - the state is effectively gambling with the lives of it's citizens by allowing terrorists back into society in the hope that the surveillance teams will keep control of them.
As was seen in the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed - it's not all that difficult to give surveillance teams the slip - and then we're back to the issue which the Human Rights Act supporters seem to be dodging - how can you justify the preventable deaths of innocent people if he then carry's out an attack. As Al-Britani did.
Are these deaths acceptable collateral damage in the fight for Human Rights?
How long is 'a reasonable period of time'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486838/Mohammed-Ahmed-Mohamed-Terr...
Yes - was the state wrong to incarcerate al-Britani without charge?
Interesting that you've suggested that one option would be increased surveillance, given the resistance that pro-Human Rights Act groups and 'the left' have generally displayed to this, in the name of Article 8 (the right to privacy).
Whilst I agree that this would be a good thing, it's still a risky option - the state is effectively gambling with the lives of it's citizens by allowing terrorists back into society in the hope that the surveillance teams will keep control of them.
As was seen in the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed - it's not all that difficult to give surveillance teams the slip - and then we're back to the issue which the Human Rights Act supporters seem to be dodging - how can you justify the preventable deaths of innocent people if he then carry's out an attack. As Al-Britani did.
Are these deaths acceptable collateral damage in the fight for Human Rights?
How long is 'a reasonable period of time'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486838/Mohammed-Ahmed-Mohamed-Terr...
Post edited at 15:48
3
3
In reply to GrahamD:
Hipsters? Kill them with fire.
> To be honest, I'm far more in fear of the toxic rhetoric of my own countryman that tries to stigmatise whole swathes of the population (possibly because they have fundamentalist beards ?)
Hipsters? Kill them with fire.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I think most people who have an interest in civil liberties or human rights would argue that both incarceration and surveillance are an intrusion into peoples' human rights, but ones that can be justified (provided used proportionately) where necessary.
Surveillance is often fought where it is applied across the board and without reason, because it does intrude upon peoples' human rights, but it is generally accepted that some level of surveillance, where there is sufficient reason to do so, can be proportionate.
As for your comment - "how can you justify the preventable deaths of innocent people if he then carry's out an attack" - you do so because there has to be a balance between restricting human rights and saving lives. I'd ask you another question - how can you justify imprisoning people who might be innocent just because you are scared they might commit crimes?
The irony is that the kind of unforgiving, brutal society which harshly punishes people without fair trial is exactly the one which those you would claim to be fighting are trying to impose.
I think most people who have an interest in civil liberties or human rights would argue that both incarceration and surveillance are an intrusion into peoples' human rights, but ones that can be justified (provided used proportionately) where necessary.
Surveillance is often fought where it is applied across the board and without reason, because it does intrude upon peoples' human rights, but it is generally accepted that some level of surveillance, where there is sufficient reason to do so, can be proportionate.
As for your comment - "how can you justify the preventable deaths of innocent people if he then carry's out an attack" - you do so because there has to be a balance between restricting human rights and saving lives. I'd ask you another question - how can you justify imprisoning people who might be innocent just because you are scared they might commit crimes?
The irony is that the kind of unforgiving, brutal society which harshly punishes people without fair trial is exactly the one which those you would claim to be fighting are trying to impose.
8
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Supporting the concept of basic fundamental human rights does not mean I don't believe there are people within and without our society that pose threats to that society and its individuals. There are however multiple solutions to that problem, each with costs and benefits.
People. Allowing people back into society until it is determined that they are or are not terrorists/criminals so they may be dealt with appropriately.
It is not possible to reduce risk of a fellow human harming us to zero, we need to accept this then seek solutions to that threat which appropriately balance liberty and security. Broadly I think we get this about right in the UK at the moment but in changing times that balance can get a little out of kilter while the law and social norms adapt to rapid technological or ideological shifts and new threats. So yes, some death as a result of 'terror' is a regrettable but ultimately acceptable cost of living in a free and just society that respects and protects the rights of individuals. Exactly how much we will tolerate is obviously debatable, contentious and surprisingly it seems rather flexible.
Personally I'd draw the line at a very few weeks with significant and regular judicial oversight beyond a few days.
jk
> Yes - was the state wrong to incarcerate al-Britani without charge?Interesting that you've suggested that one option would be increased surveillance, given the resistance that pro-Human Rights Act groups and 'the left' have generally displayed to this, in the name of Article 8 (the right to privacy).
Supporting the concept of basic fundamental human rights does not mean I don't believe there are people within and without our society that pose threats to that society and its individuals. There are however multiple solutions to that problem, each with costs and benefits.
> Whilst I agree that this would be a good thing, it's still a risky option - the state is effectively gambling with the lives of it's citizens by allowing terrorists back into society in the hope that the surveillance teams will keep control of them.
People. Allowing people back into society until it is determined that they are or are not terrorists/criminals so they may be dealt with appropriately.
> As was seen in the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed - it's not all that difficult to give surveillance teams the slip - and then we're back to the issue which the Human Rights Act supporters seem to be dodging - how can you justify the preventable deaths of innocent people if he then carry's out an attack. As Al-Britani did. Are these deaths acceptable collateral damage in the fight for Human Rights?
It is not possible to reduce risk of a fellow human harming us to zero, we need to accept this then seek solutions to that threat which appropriately balance liberty and security. Broadly I think we get this about right in the UK at the moment but in changing times that balance can get a little out of kilter while the law and social norms adapt to rapid technological or ideological shifts and new threats. So yes, some death as a result of 'terror' is a regrettable but ultimately acceptable cost of living in a free and just society that respects and protects the rights of individuals. Exactly how much we will tolerate is obviously debatable, contentious and surprisingly it seems rather flexible.
> How long is 'a reasonable period of time'.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486838/Mohammed-Ahmed-Mohamed-Terr...
Personally I'd draw the line at a very few weeks with significant and regular judicial oversight beyond a few days.
jk
Post edited at 16:16
5
3
In reply to Jim 1003:
And what would the costs of interment without charge be?
jk
> In this case it would have been deeply productive...because he wouldn't have been able to murder anybody else.
And what would the costs of interment without charge be?
jk
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>Whilst I agree that this would be a good thing, it's still a risky option - the state is effectively gambling with the lives of it's citizens by allowing terrorists back into society in the hope that the surveillance teams will keep control of them.
Less than a thousand people were imprisoned at Guantanamo but orange jumpsuits featured in jihadist propaganda distributed worldwide and seen by tens of millions.
Did Guantanamo inspire or create more terrorists than it locked up? Nobody knows. Gifting your opponent a propaganda victory is a gamble.
The safe choice for a cowardly politician is to lock them up so the politician can't be accused of letting free a terrorist.
The sensible choice for a brave politician might be to let them go and take the risk. Nobody knows. It's a gamble.
>Whilst I agree that this would be a good thing, it's still a risky option - the state is effectively gambling with the lives of it's citizens by allowing terrorists back into society in the hope that the surveillance teams will keep control of them.
Less than a thousand people were imprisoned at Guantanamo but orange jumpsuits featured in jihadist propaganda distributed worldwide and seen by tens of millions.
Did Guantanamo inspire or create more terrorists than it locked up? Nobody knows. Gifting your opponent a propaganda victory is a gamble.
The safe choice for a cowardly politician is to lock them up so the politician can't be accused of letting free a terrorist.
The sensible choice for a brave politician might be to let them go and take the risk. Nobody knows. It's a gamble.
2
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Jonny was turned into atoms at the football match today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the person who killed him."
A brutal society, indeed.
Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Jonny was turned into atoms at the football match today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the person who killed him."
A brutal society, indeed.
2
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Society is always about the balancing of different needs, rights, and freedoms. Potentially, there could be no terrorism if everybody was tracked and monitored in certain ways, but we would lose personal privacy.
> Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Jonny was turned into atoms at the football match today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the person who killed him."A brutal society, indeed.
Society is always about the balancing of different needs, rights, and freedoms. Potentially, there could be no terrorism if everybody was tracked and monitored in certain ways, but we would lose personal privacy.
Post edited at 16:35
1
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
''The irony is that the kind of unforgiving, brutal society which harshly punishes people without fair trial is exactly the one which those you would claim to be fighting are trying to impose.''
> Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Jonny was turned into atoms at the football match today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the person who killed him."A brutal society, indeed.
''The irony is that the kind of unforgiving, brutal society which harshly punishes people without fair trial is exactly the one which those you would claim to be fighting are trying to impose.''
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You do seem to be ignoring all of the detailed points which have been raised by numerous people on this thread about why it isn't as simple as saying that because it *might* protect people, we should lock people up (regardless of any rights those people may have themselves). Is that deliberate?
Innocent people have been killed by road traffic accidents - I assume you also feel strongly that cars should be banned? "I'm sorry little Jonny was splattered on the pavement... he died because we were protecting the rights of people to get somewhere faster than walking".
Equally, people (innocent people below) have been killed in mountains by rockfall triggered by others. Presumably you wouldn't countenance climbing / walking in high valleys where that could happen?
These ideas both sound stupid (and they are), but the point is that if you just try and apply an absolutist approach to things then they tend to. Anything we do to try and protect people involves weighing up different freedoms and dangers to come to a balance.
You do seem to be ignoring all of the detailed points which have been raised by numerous people on this thread about why it isn't as simple as saying that because it *might* protect people, we should lock people up (regardless of any rights those people may have themselves). Is that deliberate?
Innocent people have been killed by road traffic accidents - I assume you also feel strongly that cars should be banned? "I'm sorry little Jonny was splattered on the pavement... he died because we were protecting the rights of people to get somewhere faster than walking".
Equally, people (innocent people below) have been killed in mountains by rockfall triggered by others. Presumably you wouldn't countenance climbing / walking in high valleys where that could happen?
These ideas both sound stupid (and they are), but the point is that if you just try and apply an absolutist approach to things then they tend to. Anything we do to try and protect people involves weighing up different freedoms and dangers to come to a balance.
4
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
As we keep bringing this up how about doing away with a prison camp that acts outside the law where torture is routine? A prison camp that actually converts people to terrorism and acts as the recruitment poster for terrorists by showing how bad the West is. I reckon that would be a good start.
I would be interested in how you would draw up a human rights law that ensured equal treatment while protecting its citizens?
> .Once again, can you propose an alternative method of dealing with thee people?
As we keep bringing this up how about doing away with a prison camp that acts outside the law where torture is routine? A prison camp that actually converts people to terrorism and acts as the recruitment poster for terrorists by showing how bad the West is. I reckon that would be a good start.
I would be interested in how you would draw up a human rights law that ensured equal treatment while protecting its citizens?
5
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Or, alternatively, I'm sorry little Mohammed won't home this year as he's busy having a beating in Cuba right now.
Innocent victims in both cases
> Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Jonny was turned into atoms at the football match today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the person who killed him."A brutal society, indeed.
Or, alternatively, I'm sorry little Mohammed won't home this year as he's busy having a beating in Cuba right now.
Innocent victims in both cases
3
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Sensible reflections there Rob.
And as dread-i pointed out earlier:
The only way to win this war is to win the battle of minds. If we just destroy our enemy we still lose the war, as the things we beileve in will be be destroyed along with them. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. (Freedom, Justice, Compassion).
To win the battle of minds we must persuade the Islamic world that our way of life would benefit theirs. That is exactly what radical Islamist are doing in reverse. They are saying our society will destroy theirs and damn them to hell if they do not rise up against it. And who's to say that they aren't right. As far as I can see, the Western World's involvement in the area has led to death and destruction on an industrial scale, with only a few Sheihks benefitting from it. All because of the black gold under the sand. A product, which use is destroying the planet! Madness!
As dread-i says, we must show our society is better than theirs in every way, fight fire with fire. And at the moment we are clearly not doing this for the vast majority of the Muslims in that area.
Perhaps the first things to do is to stop the drone attacks which have a 90% civilian casualty rate, stop selling weapons to Wahabist loons to blow the shit out of Yemenis, close Guantanamo and return to a system of due process. You know, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
> 1) No-one will ever be able to guarantee any of us won't be vaporised at a bus stop, because the world will always contain its share of inadequates and misfits who will jump on some violent bandwagon or other. Fortunately the risk remains pretty small for most of us. 2) The best methodology is to continue to develop a stable, equitable state governed by the rule of laws that apply equally to all, where all communities feel equally at home and valued; where all members feel they have something valuable to lose. Then you have a much greater chance of receiving intelligence about July 7 bombers, the would-be shoe bomber, this latest dimwit and any others who may be out there, before they get a chance to do bad things. They all had parents, relatives and friends who could and should have shopped them.
Sensible reflections there Rob.
And as dread-i pointed out earlier:
> If we decry the barbarity of radical nut jobs, then we need to show that we are orders of magnitude above them in the way we serve justice.
The only way to win this war is to win the battle of minds. If we just destroy our enemy we still lose the war, as the things we beileve in will be be destroyed along with them. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. (Freedom, Justice, Compassion).
To win the battle of minds we must persuade the Islamic world that our way of life would benefit theirs. That is exactly what radical Islamist are doing in reverse. They are saying our society will destroy theirs and damn them to hell if they do not rise up against it. And who's to say that they aren't right. As far as I can see, the Western World's involvement in the area has led to death and destruction on an industrial scale, with only a few Sheihks benefitting from it. All because of the black gold under the sand. A product, which use is destroying the planet! Madness!
As dread-i says, we must show our society is better than theirs in every way, fight fire with fire. And at the moment we are clearly not doing this for the vast majority of the Muslims in that area.
Perhaps the first things to do is to stop the drone attacks which have a 90% civilian casualty rate, stop selling weapons to Wahabist loons to blow the shit out of Yemenis, close Guantanamo and return to a system of due process. You know, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
5
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Mohamed was vapourised by a drone attack at the mosque today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the people who never cared about him and anyway we were doing a favour for our Wahabi chums." A brutal society, indeed.
Blimey - "I'm sorry Little Mohamed was vapourised by a drone attack at the mosque today...he died because we were protecting the human rights of the people who never cared about him and anyway we were doing a favour for our Wahabi chums." A brutal society, indeed.
Post edited at 18:16
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I agree with all of that bar the 90% civilian casualty rate from drone strikes. I believe it's currently between 10-15%, even using the figures from the more critical sources?
I draw the line at becoming French.
> Perhaps the first things to do is to stop the drone attacks which have a 90% civilian casualty rate, stop selling weapons to Wahabist loons to blow the shit out of Yemenis, close Guantanamo and return to a system of due process.
I agree with all of that bar the 90% civilian casualty rate from drone strikes. I believe it's currently between 10-15%, even using the figures from the more critical sources?
> You know, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
I draw the line at becoming French.
Post edited at 18:39
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
It's easy to look at a specific case and say *retrospectively* this or that should or shouldn't have been done. This is what you're doing.
What policy makers have to consider is what rules will work when applied across the board before any outcomes are known. You can't just say "it's fine to detain people indefinitely without charge" because that would be a police state, and that's not what you actually want. So you have to define it in a way that makes a workable policy: "it's fine to detain people without charge in circumstances x,y, and z". Then for every person detained without charge you have to show that circumstances x,y and z really do apply. And that's not going to be very different to coming up with the evidence to charge the suspect.
The authorities are faced with a very difficult problem: they can't operate a police state; but sooner or later a terrorist act will be committed and the question "why didn't you stop them?" will be asked. You seem to think it's easy to spot who's probably a terrorist (whatever that means) and then just lock these people up without trial to protect all the innocent people, but that's not how the world works.
The best policy that the US could come up with for these people was to lock them up in Guantanamo Bay. And that has been an unmitigated disaster. If you honestly think that this has made the world a safer place, you're totally deluded: it's been a losing card played by the US (or the West if you see it that way) in the so-called battle of ideas
There is no easy solution, and if there was one, it would look nothing like Guantanamo Bay.
It's easy to look at a specific case and say *retrospectively* this or that should or shouldn't have been done. This is what you're doing.
What policy makers have to consider is what rules will work when applied across the board before any outcomes are known. You can't just say "it's fine to detain people indefinitely without charge" because that would be a police state, and that's not what you actually want. So you have to define it in a way that makes a workable policy: "it's fine to detain people without charge in circumstances x,y, and z". Then for every person detained without charge you have to show that circumstances x,y and z really do apply. And that's not going to be very different to coming up with the evidence to charge the suspect.
The authorities are faced with a very difficult problem: they can't operate a police state; but sooner or later a terrorist act will be committed and the question "why didn't you stop them?" will be asked. You seem to think it's easy to spot who's probably a terrorist (whatever that means) and then just lock these people up without trial to protect all the innocent people, but that's not how the world works.
The best policy that the US could come up with for these people was to lock them up in Guantanamo Bay. And that has been an unmitigated disaster. If you honestly think that this has made the world a safer place, you're totally deluded: it's been a losing card played by the US (or the West if you see it that way) in the so-called battle of ideas
There is no easy solution, and if there was one, it would look nothing like Guantanamo Bay.
4
2
In reply to Ridge:
Here's a bit on those numbers. Not read it properly myself yet...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrati...
> I agree with all of that bar the 90% civilian casualty rate from drone strikes. I believe it's currently between 10-15%, even using the figures from the more critical sources?I draw the line at becoming French.
Here's a bit on those numbers. Not read it properly myself yet...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-obama-administrati...
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I think to make any progress at all the whole notion of a battle of ideas between The West and Islam must be dropped. Right and wrongs aside, it's not working.
> To win the battle of minds we must persuade the Islamic world that our way of life would benefit theirs.
I think to make any progress at all the whole notion of a battle of ideas between The West and Islam must be dropped. Right and wrongs aside, it's not working.
2
2
In reply to the disliker:
I don't mind you 'disliking' my views, although I would much prefer you to articulate some form disagreement. But 'disliking' a well-researched article full of real information that helps clarify a point of debate is just f*cking moronic. I'll bet both arse cheeks you didn't read it.
I don't mind you 'disliking' my views, although I would much prefer you to articulate some form disagreement. But 'disliking' a well-researched article full of real information that helps clarify a point of debate is just f*cking moronic. I'll bet both arse cheeks you didn't read it.
4
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Thanks. That article takes some digesting. I think there's a bit of semantics involved on all sides.
Indicates that the US would count the casualties of mistakenly flattening a mosque as pretty much all being enemy combatants, which is obviously wrong. However:
Seems to take the view that unless you know the name of each individual in a heavily armed group of IS fighters and write their names on the Hellfire missile that obliterates them, then they are obviously innocent civilians. That's equally skewed.
> Here's a bit on those numbers. Not read it properly myself yet.
Thanks. That article takes some digesting. I think there's a bit of semantics involved on all sides.
> The New York Times provided a first clue back in 2012, when it reported that the U.S. “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Indicates that the US would count the casualties of mistakenly flattening a mosque as pretty much all being enemy combatants, which is obviously wrong. However:
> The Intercept reported, “U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”
Seems to take the view that unless you know the name of each individual in a heavily armed group of IS fighters and write their names on the Hellfire missile that obliterates them, then they are obviously innocent civilians. That's equally skewed.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Have a "+1"
> I don't mind you 'disliking' my views, although I would much prefer you to articulate some form disagreement. But 'disliking' a well-researched article full of real information that helps clarify a point of debate is just f*cking moronic. I'll bet both arse cheeks you didn't read it.
Have a "+1"
1
In reply to Ridge:
I think we'd need to know a bit more about the specific nature of the operations to make these kinds of judgements. Are the drone strikes targeted at specific individuals, or are they attacks on heavily armed group of IS fighters? If you're trying to take out one person about whom you have intelligence, and you kill 10 others that you don't have intel on, then how can that be justified. "We don't know who they are but they looked like IS" will be fine if they're all on a photoshoot with the flags, guns and whatnot, but is that what we're talking about? I'm not convinced it is.
> Seems to take the view that unless you know the name of each individual in a heavily armed group of IS fighters and write their names on the Hellfire missile that obliterates them, then they are obviously innocent civilians. That's equally skewed.
I think we'd need to know a bit more about the specific nature of the operations to make these kinds of judgements. Are the drone strikes targeted at specific individuals, or are they attacks on heavily armed group of IS fighters? If you're trying to take out one person about whom you have intelligence, and you kill 10 others that you don't have intel on, then how can that be justified. "We don't know who they are but they looked like IS" will be fine if they're all on a photoshoot with the flags, guns and whatnot, but is that what we're talking about? I'm not convinced it is.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I don't think it's possible to judge without looking at each individual case.
> I think we'd need to know a bit more about the specific nature of the operations to make these kinds of judgements. Are the drone strikes targeted at specific individuals, or are they attacks on heavily armed group of IS fighters? If you're trying to take out one person about whom you have intelligence, and you kill 10 others that you don't have intel on, then how can that be justified. "We don't know who they are but they looked like IS" will be fine if they're all on a photoshoot with the flags, guns and whatnot, but is that what we're talking about? I'm not convinced it is.
I don't think it's possible to judge without looking at each individual case.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The appears to be a rather a lot of deliberate misreading of my post by the enlightened masses who seem to think that by shouting 'police state' and 'human rights' rather than actually articulating an argument is they way to win the debate. And contrary to suggestion, I have never advocated torture, or Bush, or drone strikes or suggested that Guantanamo is a success story.
I have said that, in light of al-Britani's martyrdom and the subsequent information in the press demonstrating that many of the British detainees at Guantanamo have close associations with the likes of Jihadi John, Al-Britani and Anjem Choudary, were arrested in a war zone, failed to satisfactorily account for their presence and have close relatives who are known to be Jihadists and, presumably, are further known to the intelligence service...were justifiably incarcerated.
I am more than a little bit surprised to read that, in general, people seem to think that they should be released (unless there is evidence to charge them)...and if this leads to a terrorist attack and the odd mass-killing, so be it (as long as you're not the victims, naturally).
Clearly, this is nonsense.
As ever, I wait for an alternative, workable suggestion that doesn't lead to murders that could have been prevented if the perpetrator was still wearing an orange jumpsuit.
The appears to be a rather a lot of deliberate misreading of my post by the enlightened masses who seem to think that by shouting 'police state' and 'human rights' rather than actually articulating an argument is they way to win the debate. And contrary to suggestion, I have never advocated torture, or Bush, or drone strikes or suggested that Guantanamo is a success story.
I have said that, in light of al-Britani's martyrdom and the subsequent information in the press demonstrating that many of the British detainees at Guantanamo have close associations with the likes of Jihadi John, Al-Britani and Anjem Choudary, were arrested in a war zone, failed to satisfactorily account for their presence and have close relatives who are known to be Jihadists and, presumably, are further known to the intelligence service...were justifiably incarcerated.
I am more than a little bit surprised to read that, in general, people seem to think that they should be released (unless there is evidence to charge them)...and if this leads to a terrorist attack and the odd mass-killing, so be it (as long as you're not the victims, naturally).
Clearly, this is nonsense.
As ever, I wait for an alternative, workable suggestion that doesn't lead to murders that could have been prevented if the perpetrator was still wearing an orange jumpsuit.
Post edited at 22:55
2
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I'm not shouting 'police state', I'm saying that it's a very difficult problem without an obvious solution. I'm saying that a policy of detaining people indefinitely without charge is tantamount to running a police state, and as such this is not a workable policy. That's not shouting, it's an articulating an argument, which I'll do again, in more detail, if you like:
You have to have a policy that can be justified on its merits, accounting for its benefits and risks. Detaining people without trial has enormous risks for society and these must be mitigated in order for this policy to be justified. Appealing retrospectively to specific cases is not justification: the policy has to work for the *general* case, and its risks must be considered.
In order to do what you want to do - keep people detained without trial - you need a policy that allows this either in general (you don't want this, I assure you, this *is* a police state) or under specific circumstances. You haven't articulated what you think those circumstances should be so until you do you haven't presented anything that could work. The argument you present just appeals restrospectively to specific cases. So until *you* present a case for a policy that works *in general* to protect people without enabling the authorities to run a police state, we need to assume that the current UK policy of not locking people up without trial is better.
Not mentioned those in my response to you
??? Are you sure?
And as I say, appealing to these cases after the fact isn't justification for a policy of locking people up without trial. But it does highlight the conundrum - what the f*ck do you do with such people if you can't charge them. I'm not arguing that you ignore all your intel and let people who you know are going to blow up a tube station do so with impunity. I'm saying that "we'll lock up who we like without due process" is not an option that's available. Something clever that both protects the public and ensures we retain our freedoms as citizens of democracy is what's required, and it's not easy.
Clearly, this is an impossible situation. Have a policy of locking people up without trial - no thanks. Or fail to prevent terrorist attacks that we have intel about - no thanks.
You're not going to get one, because the whole point is that it's a catch 22. *You're* not offering a workable solution, you're saying after the fact what should or shouldn't have happened in specific cases, which is trivial. Anyone can look back and say "we should've done this" or "aren't we glad we did that". It doesn't help.
> The appears to be a rather a lot of deliberate misreading of my post by the enlightened masses who seem to think that by shouting 'police state' and 'human rights' rather than actually articulating an argument is they way to win the debate.
I'm not shouting 'police state', I'm saying that it's a very difficult problem without an obvious solution. I'm saying that a policy of detaining people indefinitely without charge is tantamount to running a police state, and as such this is not a workable policy. That's not shouting, it's an articulating an argument, which I'll do again, in more detail, if you like:
You have to have a policy that can be justified on its merits, accounting for its benefits and risks. Detaining people without trial has enormous risks for society and these must be mitigated in order for this policy to be justified. Appealing retrospectively to specific cases is not justification: the policy has to work for the *general* case, and its risks must be considered.
In order to do what you want to do - keep people detained without trial - you need a policy that allows this either in general (you don't want this, I assure you, this *is* a police state) or under specific circumstances. You haven't articulated what you think those circumstances should be so until you do you haven't presented anything that could work. The argument you present just appeals restrospectively to specific cases. So until *you* present a case for a policy that works *in general* to protect people without enabling the authorities to run a police state, we need to assume that the current UK policy of not locking people up without trial is better.
> And contrary to suggestion, I have never advocated torture, or Bush, or drone strikes
Not mentioned those in my response to you
> or suggested that Guantanamo is a success story.
??? Are you sure?
> I have said that, in light of al-Britani's martyrdom and the subsequent information in the press demonstrating that many of the British detainees at Guantanamo have close associations with the likes of Jihadi John, Al-Britani and Anjem Choudary, were arrested in a war zone, failed to satisfactorily account for their presence and have close relatives who are known to be Jihadists and, presumably, are further known to the intelligence service...were justifiably incarcerated.
And as I say, appealing to these cases after the fact isn't justification for a policy of locking people up without trial. But it does highlight the conundrum - what the f*ck do you do with such people if you can't charge them. I'm not arguing that you ignore all your intel and let people who you know are going to blow up a tube station do so with impunity. I'm saying that "we'll lock up who we like without due process" is not an option that's available. Something clever that both protects the public and ensures we retain our freedoms as citizens of democracy is what's required, and it's not easy.
> I am more than a little bit surprised to read that, in general, people seem to think that they should be released (unless there is evidence to charge them)...and if this leads to a terrorist attack and the odd mass-killing, so be it (as long as you're not the victims, naturally).Clearly, this is nonsense.
Clearly, this is an impossible situation. Have a policy of locking people up without trial - no thanks. Or fail to prevent terrorist attacks that we have intel about - no thanks.
> As ever, I wait for an alternative, workable suggestion that doesn't lead to murders that could have been prevented if the perpetrator was still wearing an orange jumpsuit.
You're not going to get one, because the whole point is that it's a catch 22. *You're* not offering a workable solution, you're saying after the fact what should or shouldn't have happened in specific cases, which is trivial. Anyone can look back and say "we should've done this" or "aren't we glad we did that". It doesn't help.
Post edited at 23:29
7
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
But i have offered a soloution - the continued incarceration, without trial, of people for whom there is a strong intelligence case to suggest that they are dangerous terrorists.
In light of Al-Britani, the limited information available in the press (and presumably secret intelligence held by the security services) indicate that the 17 British inmates were held there with good reason.
We're not talking about Orwellian snatch squads, as much as the 'police state' brigade like to think so - we're talking about people who were arrested on the wrong side of the front line in a war zone.
You disagree? Propose an alternative, "you're not going to get one, because the whole point is that it's a catch 22"is not an adequate response for a real world issue.
But i have offered a soloution - the continued incarceration, without trial, of people for whom there is a strong intelligence case to suggest that they are dangerous terrorists.
In light of Al-Britani, the limited information available in the press (and presumably secret intelligence held by the security services) indicate that the 17 British inmates were held there with good reason.
We're not talking about Orwellian snatch squads, as much as the 'police state' brigade like to think so - we're talking about people who were arrested on the wrong side of the front line in a war zone.
You disagree? Propose an alternative, "you're not going to get one, because the whole point is that it's a catch 22"is not an adequate response for a real world issue.
Post edited at 01:16
3
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Thanks for the link Jon.
Form the article, as I stated.
“U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”
P.S. Don't worry about the dislikers. I suspect you have some serial dislikers, I know I have, it used to bother me, but as Big Ger once pointed out, I now think of it as a badge of honour.
> Here's a bit on those numbers. Not read it properly myself yet...
Thanks for the link Jon.
Form the article, as I stated.
“U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”
P.S. Don't worry about the dislikers. I suspect you have some serial dislikers, I know I have, it used to bother me, but as Big Ger once pointed out, I now think of it as a badge of honour.
1
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yes, perhaps the battle of minds was not the correct phrase to use. What I was trying (badly) to explain was that to the average Muslim, especially those living in the Middle East, is that we are not out to destroy their way of life and not that they should become like Westerners. That battle is futile and probably not even desirous. We (the Royal "we") have patently not done this. If I was an average Muslim living in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, to name a few, I would think that recent history would suggest that we are doing everything we could to destroy their world.
Here's the problem. The rich and powerful of both sides don't give a monkey's about the average Muslim, nor probably the average Westerner. To them, they are just sand-n****rs. The whole situation is down to one thing. OIL. Who controls it and who makes the money. The whole situation would melt into insignificance if we could drop our dependency on oil, which with enough will we could. It would just become an ideological battle between Sunnis' and Shi-ites, fighting out a turf-war. That is what we unleashed when we deposed Saddam, in what was a war to gain more control over the oil.
But why would the rich and powerful do anything to change the way things are. It is them making the money and it is not them the are getting "blown to atoms" on the tube, on busses, mown down by lorries at public celebrations or shot at nightclubs. Nor is it them having their homes bombed and their 8 year old children killed.
The only way things are going to change is by us, especially the Americans, voting for leaders who are not out for the 1%, but care passionately about ordinary people - of all nations and creeds. People like Bernie Sanders and dare I say, Jeremy Corbyn. But we won't do that either. And that's because, just like the rich and powerful, we are doing just fine in our comfortable lifestyles. The only solace I find from Brexit and the Trump Presidency, is that enough people finally said "F*ck you" to the status quo. It's just such a pity they decided to go for alternatives that were an even bigger dose of what they were saying "F*ck you" to.
All I can say to Trump and May is "F*ck you".
Edit:
Oh yeah. To all Islamic extremist, "Fuck you too".
> I think to make any progress at all the whole notion of a battle of ideas between The West and Islam must be dropped. Right and wrongs aside, it's not working.
Yes, perhaps the battle of minds was not the correct phrase to use. What I was trying (badly) to explain was that to the average Muslim, especially those living in the Middle East, is that we are not out to destroy their way of life and not that they should become like Westerners. That battle is futile and probably not even desirous. We (the Royal "we") have patently not done this. If I was an average Muslim living in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, to name a few, I would think that recent history would suggest that we are doing everything we could to destroy their world.
Here's the problem. The rich and powerful of both sides don't give a monkey's about the average Muslim, nor probably the average Westerner. To them, they are just sand-n****rs. The whole situation is down to one thing. OIL. Who controls it and who makes the money. The whole situation would melt into insignificance if we could drop our dependency on oil, which with enough will we could. It would just become an ideological battle between Sunnis' and Shi-ites, fighting out a turf-war. That is what we unleashed when we deposed Saddam, in what was a war to gain more control over the oil.
But why would the rich and powerful do anything to change the way things are. It is them making the money and it is not them the are getting "blown to atoms" on the tube, on busses, mown down by lorries at public celebrations or shot at nightclubs. Nor is it them having their homes bombed and their 8 year old children killed.
The only way things are going to change is by us, especially the Americans, voting for leaders who are not out for the 1%, but care passionately about ordinary people - of all nations and creeds. People like Bernie Sanders and dare I say, Jeremy Corbyn. But we won't do that either. And that's because, just like the rich and powerful, we are doing just fine in our comfortable lifestyles. The only solace I find from Brexit and the Trump Presidency, is that enough people finally said "F*ck you" to the status quo. It's just such a pity they decided to go for alternatives that were an even bigger dose of what they were saying "F*ck you" to.
All I can say to Trump and May is "F*ck you".
Edit:
Oh yeah. To all Islamic extremist, "Fuck you too".
Post edited at 07:29
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I wasn't the disliker... but I do have a dislike of people posting links that they hold out as "evidence" when they admit they haven't actually read the content of the linked article.... which is what seems to be the case here?
I wasn't the disliker... but I do have a dislike of people posting links that they hold out as "evidence" when they admit they haven't actually read the content of the linked article.... which is what seems to be the case here?
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Its not a solution, though, is it ? because terrorist attacks like Paris and Brussels did not stop whilst people were incarcerated.
> But i have offered a soloution - the continued incarceration, without trial, of people for whom there is a strong intelligence case to suggest that they are dangerous terrorists.
Its not a solution, though, is it ? because terrorist attacks like Paris and Brussels did not stop whilst people were incarcerated.
2
1
In reply to GrahamD:
So,
Al-Britani, chained up in a cell at Guantanamo = he doesn't attack anyone because he can't wriggle out of his handcuffs.
Al-Britani released from custody = he stuffs a car with explosives and detonates it at a police checkpoint in Iraq.
Clearly, incarcerating him prevented him from killing people. Ergo, incarcerate all the other lunatics whom intelligence suggest are terrorists and you get fewer attacks.
Who are these people 'whom intelligence suggest are terrorists? Well, try these for size:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/french-and-belgian-intelligen...
Has this lot been incarcerated when the authorities first uncovered the intelligence that indicated they were Jihadists, they wouldn't have been able to commit the attacks in Paris and Brussels which you've referred to...which kind of negates your argument.
Not really 'a very good point', after all.
So,
Al-Britani, chained up in a cell at Guantanamo = he doesn't attack anyone because he can't wriggle out of his handcuffs.
Al-Britani released from custody = he stuffs a car with explosives and detonates it at a police checkpoint in Iraq.
Clearly, incarcerating him prevented him from killing people. Ergo, incarcerate all the other lunatics whom intelligence suggest are terrorists and you get fewer attacks.
Who are these people 'whom intelligence suggest are terrorists? Well, try these for size:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/french-and-belgian-intelligen...
Has this lot been incarcerated when the authorities first uncovered the intelligence that indicated they were Jihadists, they wouldn't have been able to commit the attacks in Paris and Brussels which you've referred to...which kind of negates your argument.
Not really 'a very good point', after all.
Post edited at 17:13
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>We're not talking about Orwellian snatch squads, as much as the 'police state' brigade like to think so - we're talking about people who were arrested on the wrong side of the front line in a war zone.
"According to an analysis of long-neglected US military capture information, 68 of the residual Guantánamo detainees were captured by Pakistani security forces or apparent informants."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/25/guantanamo-detainees-captur...
If you follow the link from that gruniad article, there are a lot of 'forever prisoners', who have never been charged with a crime. Many were arrested in Pakistan.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/arti...
But now that you know that the US are doing as you suggested, throwing away the key, do you feel any safer?
>We're not talking about Orwellian snatch squads, as much as the 'police state' brigade like to think so - we're talking about people who were arrested on the wrong side of the front line in a war zone.
"According to an analysis of long-neglected US military capture information, 68 of the residual Guantánamo detainees were captured by Pakistani security forces or apparent informants."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/25/guantanamo-detainees-captur...
If you follow the link from that gruniad article, there are a lot of 'forever prisoners', who have never been charged with a crime. Many were arrested in Pakistan.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/arti...
But now that you know that the US are doing as you suggested, throwing away the key, do you feel any safer?
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Intelligence indicated no such thing. It may have indicated that certain people were potential terrorists, but then every disgruntled hothead in any walk of life is a 'potential' terrorist. Obviously the more people you incarcerate without trial, the more likely you are to push one of your potential terrorists into being an actual terrorist.
Intelligence is based on balance of probabilities based on observations and allegations. It is nowhere near the indicator of hard fact as you seem to believe. If authorities had really believed the perpetrators of Brussels, Paris or Nothern Ireland, on balance of probability, were a threat they would have been kept under close observation - they weren't because intelligence wasn't that strong.
The number of potential terrorists vastly outnumbers actual terrorists. You can't incarcerate or keep under observation everyone just because they are called Paddy or Abdul and wrote "bomb" in one of their emails and you wouldn't make the world safer even if you did.
> Has this lot been incarcerated when the authorities first uncovered the intelligence that indicated they were Jihadists, they wouldn't have been able to commit the attacks in Paris and Brussels
Intelligence indicated no such thing. It may have indicated that certain people were potential terrorists, but then every disgruntled hothead in any walk of life is a 'potential' terrorist. Obviously the more people you incarcerate without trial, the more likely you are to push one of your potential terrorists into being an actual terrorist.
Intelligence is based on balance of probabilities based on observations and allegations. It is nowhere near the indicator of hard fact as you seem to believe. If authorities had really believed the perpetrators of Brussels, Paris or Nothern Ireland, on balance of probability, were a threat they would have been kept under close observation - they weren't because intelligence wasn't that strong.
The number of potential terrorists vastly outnumbers actual terrorists. You can't incarcerate or keep under observation everyone just because they are called Paddy or Abdul and wrote "bomb" in one of their emails and you wouldn't make the world safer even if you did.
3
1
In reply to JJL:
I skimmed it to see if it addressed the point in question, which it did, posted it saying that I'd not read it properly, and then read it before commenting - I didn't present it as evidence. So no, that's not the case here.
> I wasn't the disliker... but I do have a dislike of people posting links that they hold out as "evidence" when they admit they haven't actually read the content of the linked article.... which is what seems to be the case here?
I skimmed it to see if it addressed the point in question, which it did, posted it saying that I'd not read it properly, and then read it before commenting - I didn't present it as evidence. So no, that's not the case here.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Um, well it is really. You were concerned that someone had disliked "facts" without really being clear that the "facts" actually addressed the point. You asserted "well-researched", which I'd argue is a bit hard to determine from "I skimmed it" and "I haven't read it properly myself".
Oh, and here's a link that supports my argument above (although I have only skimmed it and haven't read it properly):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2017/02/06/10-shrewd-tax-moves-f...
> I skimmed it to see if it addressed the point in question, which it did, posted it saying that I'd not read it properly, and then read it before commenting - I didn't present it as evidence. So no, that's not the case here.
Um, well it is really. You were concerned that someone had disliked "facts" without really being clear that the "facts" actually addressed the point. You asserted "well-researched", which I'd argue is a bit hard to determine from "I skimmed it" and "I haven't read it properly myself".
Oh, and here's a link that supports my argument above (although I have only skimmed it and haven't read it properly):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2017/02/06/10-shrewd-tax-moves-f...
1
In reply to JJL:
Ooops, wrong link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-o...
Ooops, wrong link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-o...
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Now thats not really true, is it?
Intelligence indicated that "Several had dossiers identifying them as radicals. At least five had travelled to fight in Syria and returned to homes in France or Belgium".
You really think they were 'potential terrorists'??! Given that they had already travelled overseas in order to murder the unbelievers, I rather think that they were actual terrorists. Don't you?
Perhaps, if the intelligence agenies had been able to dump some of their workload in Guantanamo, they'd have had the resources to keep an eye of this lot? Afterall, they have long complained that they are unable to cope with the recent surge of islamic terrorism (thanks to Blair et al) and are unable to monitor all the people they consider to be a threat.
Perhaps if they had been captured and incarcerated while they were over in Iraq, like Al-Britani and co, they wouldn't have been able to commit the attack in the first place.
They're an interesting case study - we know they're radical, we know that they've been fighting in Syria, we think they're a threat, but we don't have enough evidence to take them to court.
Should we send them to Guantanamo?
Can we afford not to?
Now thats not really true, is it?
Intelligence indicated that "Several had dossiers identifying them as radicals. At least five had travelled to fight in Syria and returned to homes in France or Belgium".
You really think they were 'potential terrorists'??! Given that they had already travelled overseas in order to murder the unbelievers, I rather think that they were actual terrorists. Don't you?
Perhaps, if the intelligence agenies had been able to dump some of their workload in Guantanamo, they'd have had the resources to keep an eye of this lot? Afterall, they have long complained that they are unable to cope with the recent surge of islamic terrorism (thanks to Blair et al) and are unable to monitor all the people they consider to be a threat.
Perhaps if they had been captured and incarcerated while they were over in Iraq, like Al-Britani and co, they wouldn't have been able to commit the attack in the first place.
They're an interesting case study - we know they're radical, we know that they've been fighting in Syria, we think they're a threat, but we don't have enough evidence to take them to court.
Should we send them to Guantanamo?
Can we afford not to?
Post edited at 23:40
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
The point I was addressing is that quite a few of those incarcerated were not caught on the battle field, as was suggested.
Some have been held years with no charge. Some, with suspected with links to the 9/11 attackers are still awaiting trial. One would have thought that to show justice being done, they might have found the required evidence and pushed for a court date in the last decade or so.
It would appear that rather than Guantanamo making the world a safer place, it has had the opposite effect. It is used by terrorists as a propaganda tool. It tarnishes the US and the rule of law.
The point I was addressing is that quite a few of those incarcerated were not caught on the battle field, as was suggested.
Some have been held years with no charge. Some, with suspected with links to the 9/11 attackers are still awaiting trial. One would have thought that to show justice being done, they might have found the required evidence and pushed for a court date in the last decade or so.
It would appear that rather than Guantanamo making the world a safer place, it has had the opposite effect. It is used by terrorists as a propaganda tool. It tarnishes the US and the rule of law.
3
1
In reply to JJL:
It seems what you object to is people using material as evidence that they haven't read. I posted it before I read it, stated that, and then read it before I described it as "well-researched". You don't have a valid point.
You would have a point if I had commented on it without reading it. By the time I commented on, I had read it. You are wrong.
It seems what you object to is people using material as evidence that they haven't read. I posted it before I read it, stated that, and then read it before I described it as "well-researched". You don't have a valid point.
You would have a point if I had commented on it without reading it. By the time I commented on, I had read it. You are wrong.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
No. You still haven't got it.
You posted an article unread.
It got disliked.
I said people might not be disliking the content but rather the fact you hadn't read it when you posted it.
Solution is simple - read the article first and then you can state in the post the key fact that it supports.
But hey, if it makes you happy I expect you're right really.
> It seems what you object to is people using material as evidence that they haven't read. I posted it before I read it, stated that, and then read it before I described it as "well-researched". You don't have a valid point.You would have a point if I had commented on it without reading it. By the time I commented on, I had read it. You are wrong.
No. You still haven't got it.
You posted an article unread.
It got disliked.
I said people might not be disliking the content but rather the fact you hadn't read it when you posted it.
Solution is simple - read the article first and then you can state in the post the key fact that it supports.
But hey, if it makes you happy I expect you're right really.
1
1
In reply to JJL:
OK I get you. All the more reason 'dislike' has no value. I don't accept that as a valid point though, because I made clear exactly what I was doing. I didn't see "here look, these are the facts" leaving anyone to assume that I had taken any view on the content.
This is really tedious, and I'm afraid you're going to struggle to convince me to change my behaviour, which contributed useful information and was entirely honest.
> I said people might not be disliking the content but rather the fact you hadn't read it when you posted it.
OK I get you. All the more reason 'dislike' has no value. I don't accept that as a valid point though, because I made clear exactly what I was doing. I didn't see "here look, these are the facts" leaving anyone to assume that I had taken any view on the content.
This is really tedious, and I'm afraid you're going to struggle to convince me to change my behaviour, which contributed useful information and was entirely honest.
1
In reply to dread-i:
Would you care to comment on the Paris / Brussels 'case study'?
Not enough evidence to prosecute, but worthy of orange jump suits, surley?
To address your other points:
Given the damage that Guantanamo has caused to successive U.S. administrations, I find it hard to believe that they're keeping people there just for the hell of it.
In the light of Al-Britani's martyrdom, its clear that the intelligence they had on him was accurate. Thr same can be said for the other Brits - known Isamists, associates of Jihadi John et al, one even managed to radicalise his own family members and pack them off (to their desths) in the Caliphate (see the telegraph article i linked to a previous post).
Given that they were right about the Brits, its seems reasonable to suggest that they are right about the others. Sadly, the intelligence is secret.
I think the value of Guantanamo as a propaganda too is over stated - they target it in their social media releases (murder videos) because they know its contraversial, but as a 'call to Jihad' its small-change compared to footage of thr carnage that Bush and co wrought upon Iraq.
Now. The Paris / Belgium attackers. Better off in Guantanamo, or running around the Bataclan with AK47's and a suicide vests?
Some people on this thread have suggested that the odd atrocity is a fair price to pay in the defence of human rights and the 'right to a fair trial'. Presumably, they're prepared to tolerate the kind of carnage these people caused in Paris.
Your thoughts?
Would you care to comment on the Paris / Brussels 'case study'?
Not enough evidence to prosecute, but worthy of orange jump suits, surley?
To address your other points:
Given the damage that Guantanamo has caused to successive U.S. administrations, I find it hard to believe that they're keeping people there just for the hell of it.
In the light of Al-Britani's martyrdom, its clear that the intelligence they had on him was accurate. Thr same can be said for the other Brits - known Isamists, associates of Jihadi John et al, one even managed to radicalise his own family members and pack them off (to their desths) in the Caliphate (see the telegraph article i linked to a previous post).
Given that they were right about the Brits, its seems reasonable to suggest that they are right about the others. Sadly, the intelligence is secret.
I think the value of Guantanamo as a propaganda too is over stated - they target it in their social media releases (murder videos) because they know its contraversial, but as a 'call to Jihad' its small-change compared to footage of thr carnage that Bush and co wrought upon Iraq.
Now. The Paris / Belgium attackers. Better off in Guantanamo, or running around the Bataclan with AK47's and a suicide vests?
Some people on this thread have suggested that the odd atrocity is a fair price to pay in the defence of human rights and the 'right to a fair trial'. Presumably, they're prepared to tolerate the kind of carnage these people caused in Paris.
Your thoughts?
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>Now. The Paris / Belgium attackers. Better off in Guantanamo, or running around the Bataclan with AK47's and a suicide vests?
You've boiled down a complex and emotive subject into a simple black and white question. The implication being, that if one doesn't support locking up people on suspicion, one must be in favor of the 'odd atrocity'.
Say we accept your point, and lock people up on suspicion. There would be so called 'clean skin' attackers, unknown to the security services, as in the 9/11 hijacks.
According to wiki, several of the Paris attackers were known suspects. But there were Iraqi's involved, and others who it appears were not known for terrorism. So it would have made things harder, even saved lives, but not prevented an attack.
If you look at the current American border farce, people with Arab sounding names are being harassed. Mohamed Ali's son was detained, for instance. This might be a preventative measure, but it is not without global condemnation.
Closer to home, some remember the "Sus Law" of the 80's. Were police could arrest people on suspicion that they were up to no good. The racial profiling from that lead to riots in our inner cities.
And on my doorstep. I've been googling Paris attacks, 9/11 hijackers and so on. Does that make me a suspect? When I fly to the States again, should I get the full works? "What is your interest in Islamic terrorism, sir? Bickering on the internet? Of course you were, sir. Could you step over here please, sir. I'm sure this wont take long, sir"
>Now. The Paris / Belgium attackers. Better off in Guantanamo, or running around the Bataclan with AK47's and a suicide vests?
You've boiled down a complex and emotive subject into a simple black and white question. The implication being, that if one doesn't support locking up people on suspicion, one must be in favor of the 'odd atrocity'.
Say we accept your point, and lock people up on suspicion. There would be so called 'clean skin' attackers, unknown to the security services, as in the 9/11 hijacks.
According to wiki, several of the Paris attackers were known suspects. But there were Iraqi's involved, and others who it appears were not known for terrorism. So it would have made things harder, even saved lives, but not prevented an attack.
If you look at the current American border farce, people with Arab sounding names are being harassed. Mohamed Ali's son was detained, for instance. This might be a preventative measure, but it is not without global condemnation.
Closer to home, some remember the "Sus Law" of the 80's. Were police could arrest people on suspicion that they were up to no good. The racial profiling from that lead to riots in our inner cities.
And on my doorstep. I've been googling Paris attacks, 9/11 hijackers and so on. Does that make me a suspect? When I fly to the States again, should I get the full works? "What is your interest in Islamic terrorism, sir? Bickering on the internet? Of course you were, sir. Could you step over here please, sir. I'm sure this wont take long, sir"
2
2
In reply to jasonC abroad:
You could do it a few times and just not be very good at it?
> Except you can only blow yourself up once, so presumably this was his first time.
You could do it a few times and just not be very good at it?
2
In reply to dread-i:
Blimey, this is like pulling teeth. As far as I can tell, the more people bleat about the 'police state', the less likely it becomes to get a meaningful debate out of them.
Try reading my post again, then have a stab at an answer.
I'll break it down into component parts for you:
1.) Do you accept that some of the people who were involved in the attacks in Paris and Belgium were already known to the security services who believed them to be 'radical', to have fought in Syria and therefore to have posed a threat to 'the west'.
2.) Given that they went on to commit mass murder in Paris and Belgium (and other 'known' terrorists have committed similar atrocities elsewhere) do you think that it would be justifiable to breach their Human Rights and detain them without charge, indefinitely, as various U.S. administrations have done at Guantanamo Bay. Even though this will not bring about an end to terrorism, because there will always be people who 'slip through the next' or who are not known to the security services, and with the added risk that some innocent people will be incarcerated.
3.) Do you think that other suspected terrorists, who are also assessed to pose a serious threat, should also be detained.
4.) Or, do you think that their Human Rights are sacred and should not be violated, even if this leads to the release of dangerous terrorists and the murder of a large number of innocent people.
5.) Please supply your rationale, with as little hot-air as possible. You will be marked down for excessive use of the phrase 'police state', referencing Wikipedia, taking offence and reductio ad absurdum (particularly if this involves invoking images of some kind of hideous, Orwellian near-future that will befall us the moment we start handing-out orange jumpsuits).
See. it's really not all that complicated.
I think you know my position on this, but since I've asked for your rationale, here's mine:
I'm going to go for option 2.
I think that if someone is strongly suspected to be a dangerous terrorist (we believe, but cannot prove that; he has been on Jihad, he holds radical views, he has had weapons training, he has the intent and capability to attack us etc etc), cast him into a cell on a remote island somewhere and throw away the key. Literally.
I accept that some innocent people will end-up being incarcerated, but we're talking innocent people who have been detained in highly suspicious circumstances in a war zone. Yes, that's a tough gig, but being turned into vapour while you're queuing-up at Greggs is a pretty tough gig, too, and need to prioritise the safety of the masses above the rights of the individual (Flash Gordon referred to this as a 'Rational Transaction' whilst preparing himself for a dangerous mission against Emperor Ming in the captured War Rocket Ajax. My kind of guy).
I accept that this will not bring about an end to terrorism. It will, however, massively reduce the ability of the people who would like to kill us, to kill us.
I accept one minus-mark for the Flash Gordon remark, under the hot-air (slash-waffle) criteria.
I look forward to your answer.
Blimey, this is like pulling teeth. As far as I can tell, the more people bleat about the 'police state', the less likely it becomes to get a meaningful debate out of them.
Try reading my post again, then have a stab at an answer.
I'll break it down into component parts for you:
1.) Do you accept that some of the people who were involved in the attacks in Paris and Belgium were already known to the security services who believed them to be 'radical', to have fought in Syria and therefore to have posed a threat to 'the west'.
2.) Given that they went on to commit mass murder in Paris and Belgium (and other 'known' terrorists have committed similar atrocities elsewhere) do you think that it would be justifiable to breach their Human Rights and detain them without charge, indefinitely, as various U.S. administrations have done at Guantanamo Bay. Even though this will not bring about an end to terrorism, because there will always be people who 'slip through the next' or who are not known to the security services, and with the added risk that some innocent people will be incarcerated.
3.) Do you think that other suspected terrorists, who are also assessed to pose a serious threat, should also be detained.
4.) Or, do you think that their Human Rights are sacred and should not be violated, even if this leads to the release of dangerous terrorists and the murder of a large number of innocent people.
5.) Please supply your rationale, with as little hot-air as possible. You will be marked down for excessive use of the phrase 'police state', referencing Wikipedia, taking offence and reductio ad absurdum (particularly if this involves invoking images of some kind of hideous, Orwellian near-future that will befall us the moment we start handing-out orange jumpsuits).
See. it's really not all that complicated.
I think you know my position on this, but since I've asked for your rationale, here's mine:
I'm going to go for option 2.
I think that if someone is strongly suspected to be a dangerous terrorist (we believe, but cannot prove that; he has been on Jihad, he holds radical views, he has had weapons training, he has the intent and capability to attack us etc etc), cast him into a cell on a remote island somewhere and throw away the key. Literally.
I accept that some innocent people will end-up being incarcerated, but we're talking innocent people who have been detained in highly suspicious circumstances in a war zone. Yes, that's a tough gig, but being turned into vapour while you're queuing-up at Greggs is a pretty tough gig, too, and need to prioritise the safety of the masses above the rights of the individual (Flash Gordon referred to this as a 'Rational Transaction' whilst preparing himself for a dangerous mission against Emperor Ming in the captured War Rocket Ajax. My kind of guy).
I accept that this will not bring about an end to terrorism. It will, however, massively reduce the ability of the people who would like to kill us, to kill us.
I accept one minus-mark for the Flash Gordon remark, under the hot-air (slash-waffle) criteria.
I look forward to your answer.
Post edited at 00:32
4
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
1) Yes and have stated so.
2&3) Not without out evidence.
4) Human right are rights that should apply to all humans. They stop when the they infringe on the rights of others.
5) As I mentioned lots of terrorists attacks are carried out by 'clean skins'.
What you are proposing is the utopian UKIP dream. (-1 point, sorry.)
The police already have lots of powers to arrest and charge for very little. (Behavior liable to cause offense, under the Public Order Act, for example).
States where people can be arrested and 'dealt with' on a whim, are not happy places. History shows us that. If theses people are as dodgy as you say then charge then, send them to court and let justice be shown to be done.
On occasion, I get the impression that some people believe that that Pastor Niemoller, is an Italian restaurant.
1) Yes and have stated so.
2&3) Not without out evidence.
4) Human right are rights that should apply to all humans. They stop when the they infringe on the rights of others.
5) As I mentioned lots of terrorists attacks are carried out by 'clean skins'.
What you are proposing is the utopian UKIP dream. (-1 point, sorry.)
The police already have lots of powers to arrest and charge for very little. (Behavior liable to cause offense, under the Public Order Act, for example).
States where people can be arrested and 'dealt with' on a whim, are not happy places. History shows us that. If theses people are as dodgy as you say then charge then, send them to court and let justice be shown to be done.
On occasion, I get the impression that some people believe that that Pastor Niemoller, is an Italian restaurant.
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
So, your agument is that the ends (ie stopping some terrorist attacks) justify the means (ie locking people up without trial, some of who will be innocent).
I'd make two point in response.
First. It seems clear to me that locking up people without trial will help terrorists gain sympathy, support and recrtuits. So it may well lead to more terrorist attacks than it stops.
Second. The risk of being killed a by a terrorist is vanishingly small. Even if Guantanamo does slightly reduce this tiny risk, it's not a risk that I think is worth locking people up without trial for.
So, your agument is that the ends (ie stopping some terrorist attacks) justify the means (ie locking people up without trial, some of who will be innocent).
I'd make two point in response.
First. It seems clear to me that locking up people without trial will help terrorists gain sympathy, support and recrtuits. So it may well lead to more terrorist attacks than it stops.
Second. The risk of being killed a by a terrorist is vanishingly small. Even if Guantanamo does slightly reduce this tiny risk, it's not a risk that I think is worth locking people up without trial for.
Post edited at 12:11
3
2
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
A couple of points by means of reply:
We've already covered this - yes, it does garner support for terrorism, but the benefits of locking up the people who are likely to carry out an attack outweigh the downside of breaching their rights..
The major recruiting factors for terrorism has been western foreign policy and ISIS's perceived military successes across the Caliphate and in Paris, Sydney, Brussels, New York, London, Istanbul, Ankara, Berlin, Ohio, Charleroi, Ansbach, St Etienne, Wurzburg, Niece, Orlando, Sousse, St Quinten, Copenhagen, Ottawa, Texas, Bardo, etc, etc, etc, etc, and not the much trumpeted injustices of Guantanamo.
Which brings me rather neatly to to my second point. The risk of being killed in a terrorist attack isn't exactly vanishingly small, is it!?
If it was the treat level in England / Wales / Scotland wouldn't be SUBSTANTIAL (an attack is a strong possibility), SEVERE in Ireland (attack is highly likely) and CRITICAL (an attack is expected imminently) across much of the Middle East and North Africa.
And, the economic damage caused by terrorists extends beyond murder. Ask anyone who relied on tourism to make make a living at the now deserted resort of Sousse, following the beach massacre, or at Sharm El Sheikh, now that it has been abandoned by tourists after ISIS brought down a packed airliner, full of tourists.
Vanishingly small? Open your eyes!
A couple of points by means of reply:
We've already covered this - yes, it does garner support for terrorism, but the benefits of locking up the people who are likely to carry out an attack outweigh the downside of breaching their rights..
The major recruiting factors for terrorism has been western foreign policy and ISIS's perceived military successes across the Caliphate and in Paris, Sydney, Brussels, New York, London, Istanbul, Ankara, Berlin, Ohio, Charleroi, Ansbach, St Etienne, Wurzburg, Niece, Orlando, Sousse, St Quinten, Copenhagen, Ottawa, Texas, Bardo, etc, etc, etc, etc, and not the much trumpeted injustices of Guantanamo.
Which brings me rather neatly to to my second point. The risk of being killed in a terrorist attack isn't exactly vanishingly small, is it!?
If it was the treat level in England / Wales / Scotland wouldn't be SUBSTANTIAL (an attack is a strong possibility), SEVERE in Ireland (attack is highly likely) and CRITICAL (an attack is expected imminently) across much of the Middle East and North Africa.
And, the economic damage caused by terrorists extends beyond murder. Ask anyone who relied on tourism to make make a living at the now deserted resort of Sousse, following the beach massacre, or at Sharm El Sheikh, now that it has been abandoned by tourists after ISIS brought down a packed airliner, full of tourists.
Vanishingly small? Open your eyes!
Post edited at 17:17
2
1
In reply to dread-i:
Well, at least you've made your opinions known.
Sacrificing other peoples lives in the name of 'Human Rights' is a big call. And one that I disagree with.
We appear to have reached an impasse!
Well, at least you've made your opinions known.
Sacrificing other peoples lives in the name of 'Human Rights' is a big call. And one that I disagree with.
We appear to have reached an impasse!
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Mr Walrus
Those detained at Guantanamo Bay should be fed Greggs pasties, the contents of the pasty being so hot it would vapourise them whilst forced to eat them.
Mr Walrus
Those detained at Guantanamo Bay should be fed Greggs pasties, the contents of the pasty being so hot it would vapourise them whilst forced to eat them.
1
In reply to Albert Tatlock:
Dude, seriously. That's an outrageous suggestion.
I won't support any policy that breaches the rights of Cornish Pasties (or meaty snacks in general).
Dude, seriously. That's an outrageous suggestion.
I won't support any policy that breaches the rights of Cornish Pasties (or meaty snacks in general).
Post edited at 19:24
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Your Meal, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/americans-are-terrible-at-weighing-t...
People in general are very bad at judging statistical risks.
The risk is very small indeed but deaths have a high psychological impact because of the media (which is of course the whole point of terrorism).
> Vanishingly small? Open your eyes!
You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Your Meal, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/americans-are-terrible-at-weighing-t...
People in general are very bad at judging statistical risks.
The risk is very small indeed but deaths have a high psychological impact because of the media (which is of course the whole point of terrorism).
2
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>We appear to have reached an impasse!
Not me. I can keep this going for weeks and weeks. I really don't have anything better to do.
But, I wish you well.
And I'll leave you with this quote from some bunch of bleeding heart liberals (who probably live in Brighton, read the guardian and drink organic, fair trade real ale.)
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"
>We appear to have reached an impasse!
Not me. I can keep this going for weeks and weeks. I really don't have anything better to do.
But, I wish you well.
And I'll leave you with this quote from some bunch of bleeding heart liberals (who probably live in Brighton, read the guardian and drink organic, fair trade real ale.)
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"
2
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
How can you ever make sure terrorism can't happen, when (I understand) it's relatively easy to buy fertiliser and whatever other bits and pieces required to cause an explosion?
Do you remember David Copeland who targeted a gay bar in London, and IIRC Brixton too, with his nail bombs designed to cause horrible injuries? There was nothing he did to alert the authorities to him, and there wasn't anything the killer of Jo Cox did to bring attention to himself either.
To me, ''sacrificing other people's lives in the name of 'Human Right's '' can seem a little disingenuous, given the steps which would need to be taken to stop all terrorism from happening.
To stop all terrorism, we'd need to live in a society where the authorities had real time access to everybody's online browsing and telephone calls, where people had to give notice of when and where they were travelling, and of anybody they might be meeting up with. Or something along those lines.
> Well, at least you've made your opinions known.Sacrificing other peoples lives in the name of 'Human Rights' is a big call. And one that I disagree with.We appear to have reached an impasse!
How can you ever make sure terrorism can't happen, when (I understand) it's relatively easy to buy fertiliser and whatever other bits and pieces required to cause an explosion?
Do you remember David Copeland who targeted a gay bar in London, and IIRC Brixton too, with his nail bombs designed to cause horrible injuries? There was nothing he did to alert the authorities to him, and there wasn't anything the killer of Jo Cox did to bring attention to himself either.
To me, ''sacrificing other people's lives in the name of 'Human Right's '' can seem a little disingenuous, given the steps which would need to be taken to stop all terrorism from happening.
To stop all terrorism, we'd need to live in a society where the authorities had real time access to everybody's online browsing and telephone calls, where people had to give notice of when and where they were travelling, and of anybody they might be meeting up with. Or something along those lines.
Post edited at 19:50
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Assuming that's a direct quote from the article you linked to, there's a bit of fallacy going on there with obesity and autoerotic asphyxiation as you can't apply population statistics to an individual, it depends on their particular lifestyle. Basically everyone sleeps in a bed and is at risk from being struck by lightning whilst a toddler attacks them with brain eating parasites, so those are good.
More generally, terrorism is very unpredictable compared to many mundane killers, so whilst it remains a very low risk for an individual compared to other things, it's harder for people to control that risk. Which might explain one of the reasons people are more concerned about terrorism.
I say that as someone who has a mental check point of "do I have pins and needles" beteeen leaving a toilet and descending stairs. The mundane killers are not going to get me.
> You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Your Meal, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists
Assuming that's a direct quote from the article you linked to, there's a bit of fallacy going on there with obesity and autoerotic asphyxiation as you can't apply population statistics to an individual, it depends on their particular lifestyle. Basically everyone sleeps in a bed and is at risk from being struck by lightning whilst a toddler attacks them with brain eating parasites, so those are good.
More generally, terrorism is very unpredictable compared to many mundane killers, so whilst it remains a very low risk for an individual compared to other things, it's harder for people to control that risk. Which might explain one of the reasons people are more concerned about terrorism.
I say that as someone who has a mental check point of "do I have pins and needles" beteeen leaving a toilet and descending stairs. The mundane killers are not going to get me.
Post edited at 19:55
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
Yes, good comparisons are ones which strike out of nowhere from general low-level risks we're all around.
Yes, good comparisons are ones which strike out of nowhere from general low-level risks we're all around.
2
In reply to dread-i:
Impasse - "A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked".
I'm sure we could both go on for weeks, the 'liberty vs security' debate has been going on for years...but it's becoming somewhat cyclical, despite the frailties of your arguments.
Unlike the heroes of Team America, I rather doubt that Archbishop Langton had come-up against a suicide bomber in a supermarket, or rather; a suicide bomber in a supermarket working in tandem with a gun man covering the exit points to pick-off the survivors, and a car bomb on a timer at the nearest ambulance RV point, when he wrote the Magna Carta.
I will therefore quote Team America, by way of retort:
"See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to f**k all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to s**t all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fu**ed by dicks. But dicks also f**k assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't f**k the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in s**t!"
Wise words, indeed. And appropriate to our time.
Impasse - "A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked".
I'm sure we could both go on for weeks, the 'liberty vs security' debate has been going on for years...but it's becoming somewhat cyclical, despite the frailties of your arguments.
Unlike the heroes of Team America, I rather doubt that Archbishop Langton had come-up against a suicide bomber in a supermarket, or rather; a suicide bomber in a supermarket working in tandem with a gun man covering the exit points to pick-off the survivors, and a car bomb on a timer at the nearest ambulance RV point, when he wrote the Magna Carta.
I will therefore quote Team America, by way of retort:
"See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to f**k all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to s**t all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fu**ed by dicks. But dicks also f**k assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't f**k the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in s**t!"
Wise words, indeed. And appropriate to our time.
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I don't understand how you're sure that the benefits of locking up without trial, outweigh the negatives. Yo don't know how many would be locked up with trial. You don't know how many attacks are avoided because these people are locked up - plenty will go ahead anyway, with different people. You don't know how much support it encourges. You just don't know. Yet you're prepared to have innocent people locked up without trial when the risk of being killed by a terrorist *is* vanishingly small. An attack might be 'strongly possible' but the chance of being killed by such an attack is tiny. 60 million poeple in the UK. How many killed by terrorists recently? Not many. Do the same for France or where ever. The chance is tiny.
I don't understand how you're sure that the benefits of locking up without trial, outweigh the negatives. Yo don't know how many would be locked up with trial. You don't know how many attacks are avoided because these people are locked up - plenty will go ahead anyway, with different people. You don't know how much support it encourges. You just don't know. Yet you're prepared to have innocent people locked up without trial when the risk of being killed by a terrorist *is* vanishingly small. An attack might be 'strongly possible' but the chance of being killed by such an attack is tiny. 60 million poeple in the UK. How many killed by terrorists recently? Not many. Do the same for France or where ever. The chance is tiny.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
Almost all of this has been covered earlier in this thread.
If you're more concerned about the dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation than terrorism, I suggest you petition your local MP and ask him to raise the point in parliament, with the recommendation that the counter terrorism budget is diverted accordingly.
I'd add that your surprising concern at the perils of such an unusual sexual activity makes me wonder what you get up to on a Sunday evening, alone and sitting in front of your computer.
Almost all of this has been covered earlier in this thread.
If you're more concerned about the dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation than terrorism, I suggest you petition your local MP and ask him to raise the point in parliament, with the recommendation that the counter terrorism budget is diverted accordingly.
I'd add that your surprising concern at the perils of such an unusual sexual activity makes me wonder what you get up to on a Sunday evening, alone and sitting in front of your computer.
Post edited at 21:05
2
1
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
There isn't a bottomless pit of highly trained, radicalised and motivated individuals who are prepared to inflict carnage on our streets, and die in the process.
By taking out the pool of 'knowns', we reduce this pool further. Ergo, reducing (but not eliminating) the risk.
Do some research into the more high-profile European attacks, all committed by people who were known to the security services, but could no be convicted in court.
ISIS have stated that they are at war with us. You win wars by killing and capturing the people who are trying to kill and capture you. Not by letting them go.
There isn't a bottomless pit of highly trained, radicalised and motivated individuals who are prepared to inflict carnage on our streets, and die in the process.
By taking out the pool of 'knowns', we reduce this pool further. Ergo, reducing (but not eliminating) the risk.
Do some research into the more high-profile European attacks, all committed by people who were known to the security services, but could no be convicted in court.
ISIS have stated that they are at war with us. You win wars by killing and capturing the people who are trying to kill and capture you. Not by letting them go.
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Well when we in this war by capturing all the would-be terrorists and incarcerating them all before they've committed any offences, and so Islamic terrorism is a thing of the past, you can say "I told you so".
> You win wars by killing and capturing the people who are trying to kill and capture you. Not by letting them go.
Well when we in this war by capturing all the would-be terrorists and incarcerating them all before they've committed any offences, and so Islamic terrorism is a thing of the past, you can say "I told you so".
1
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Don't worry, Jon. I'll be humble in victory...probably won't mention it at all.
Don't worry, Jon. I'll be humble in victory...probably won't mention it at all.
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
WTF? I never said anything about autoerotic asphyxiation...
> Almost all of this has been covered earlier in this thread.If you're more concerned about the dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation than terrorism, I suggest you petition your local MP and ask him to raise the point in parliament, with the recommendation that the counter terrorism budget is diverted accordingly.I'd add that your surprising concern at the perils of such an unusual sexual activity makes me wonder what you get up to on a Sunday evening, alone and sitting in front of your computer.
WTF? I never said anything about autoerotic asphyxiation...
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
No, people are saying that to have no terrorism at all, society would need to be so controlled and restrictive (see the Stasi in East Germany as a good example of a population being monitored and controlled), that they don't want to live in that kind of society.
Would you have liked to live in Stasi controlled East Germany?
> Some people on this thread have suggested that the odd atrocity is a fair price to pay in the defence of human rights and the 'right to a fair trial'. Presumably, they're prepared to tolerate the kind of carnage these people caused in Paris.Your thoughts?
No, people are saying that to have no terrorism at all, society would need to be so controlled and restrictive (see the Stasi in East Germany as a good example of a population being monitored and controlled), that they don't want to live in that kind of society.
Would you have liked to live in Stasi controlled East Germany?
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
Nope, but then I never said that Guantanamo would lead to the end of terrorism terrorism at all...I said that it would lead to the end of acts of terror committed by people who are known to the security services as probable terrorists.
And I never suggested an 'overly controlling and restrictive society'. More, a society that will incarcerate the likes of Gerry Adams and Jamal Udeen Al-Harith before they have a chance to kill anyone else.
Are you sure you're not into autoerotic asphyxiation?
Nope, but then I never said that Guantanamo would lead to the end of terrorism terrorism at all...I said that it would lead to the end of acts of terror committed by people who are known to the security services as probable terrorists.
And I never suggested an 'overly controlling and restrictive society'. More, a society that will incarcerate the likes of Gerry Adams and Jamal Udeen Al-Harith before they have a chance to kill anyone else.
Are you sure you're not into autoerotic asphyxiation?
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Fair enough. What happens when you know a terrorist without knowing they are, and end up in Guantanamo Bay or being interrogated in an enhanced manner?
This has actually happened to some people, their only crime was who they knew, and that they happened 'fit' the profile the intelligence agencies had built up. Not a very good profile. maybe, if innocent people got caught up in the search for terrorists.
If you wish for a reduction in human rights to help against terrorism, it has to be from a place of something stemming from that reduction potentially also happening to yourself.
Fair enough. What happens when you know a terrorist without knowing they are, and end up in Guantanamo Bay or being interrogated in an enhanced manner?
This has actually happened to some people, their only crime was who they knew, and that they happened 'fit' the profile the intelligence agencies had built up. Not a very good profile. maybe, if innocent people got caught up in the search for terrorists.
If you wish for a reduction in human rights to help against terrorism, it has to be from a place of something stemming from that reduction potentially also happening to yourself.
Post edited at 22:05
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
I've been very clear on my stance re Guantanamo:
"...it would be justifiable to breach their Human Rights and detain them without charge, indefinitely, as various U.S. administrations have done at Guantanamo Bay. Even though this will not bring about an end to terrorism, because there will always be people who 'slip through the net' or who are not known to the security services, and with the added risk that some innocent people will be incarcerated...."
I don't think that your scenario applies to the 17 British Guantanamo detainees that this debate has been based around - I don't think the issue is whether or not they are terrorists - they are - more, should we detain people who we know to be terrorists, based on intelligence that cannot be used in court, when we don't have the evidence to convict them.
Oh, as someone who doesn't travel to Syria for weapons training, hang out with known terrorists or preach about radical Islam, I don't think it's very likely that I will end-up as one of the unfortunate few innocent detainees.
Far more likely I'll be caught up in an ISIS inspired blood bath next time I go to watch the football.
I've been very clear on my stance re Guantanamo:
"...it would be justifiable to breach their Human Rights and detain them without charge, indefinitely, as various U.S. administrations have done at Guantanamo Bay. Even though this will not bring about an end to terrorism, because there will always be people who 'slip through the net' or who are not known to the security services, and with the added risk that some innocent people will be incarcerated...."
I don't think that your scenario applies to the 17 British Guantanamo detainees that this debate has been based around - I don't think the issue is whether or not they are terrorists - they are - more, should we detain people who we know to be terrorists, based on intelligence that cannot be used in court, when we don't have the evidence to convict them.
Oh, as someone who doesn't travel to Syria for weapons training, hang out with known terrorists or preach about radical Islam, I don't think it's very likely that I will end-up as one of the unfortunate few innocent detainees.
Far more likely I'll be caught up in an ISIS inspired blood bath next time I go to watch the football.
Post edited at 22:19
2
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You mean possibly reducing the already vanishingly small risk a bit, or possibly increasing it, depending on those things I listed above that you don't know.
Were you in the army?
> Ergo, reducing (but not eliminating) the risk.
You mean possibly reducing the already vanishingly small risk a bit, or possibly increasing it, depending on those things I listed above that you don't know.
Were you in the army?
3
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Your bullying tone and total lack of ability to understand other people's arguments perfectly illustrates the concerns that many of us have.
1) Of course it's self evident that if you lock up a known terrorist, then they will not be able to commit any further atrocities. Duh. Do not award yourself any points for that stunning insight.
2) It is equally self evident that if you lock everyone up who might be, or might become, a terrorist, then you're going to need a pretty big prison and one that is going to be self defeating, as we saw with the Maze (look it up - the UK's very own Guantanamo). You will end up radicalising many people who would otherwise have looked for political solutions. (Check out the origins of the Troubles in 1972. The British Army was originally WELCOMED by the Catholics, but the heavy handed tactics, Internment and their apparent bias to the Loyalist cause radicalised a whole generation of Catholics, and we're living with the consequences to this day.)
3) So the issue becomes one of balance, and the rule of law: maintaining a policy that is defensible and fair on self defence and reasonable probability grounds, without demonising or radicalising whole swathes of our own population who otherwise have precisely the same interests as everyone else. The desire for a peaceful life, a degree of prosperity and a better future for their kids.
You keep pathetically ranting on about 'what is the alternative' - the alternative to what? Locking up everyone who has ever been to Syria or Afghanistan? Locking up everybody who the US intelligence (hah!) has ever had an anonymous tip-off about? Locking up everybody who's ever been in contact with someone who later went totally off the rails (most of these jihadists are patently inadequate and mostly dim, this idea that they are cutting edge razor sharp technologists is plain wrong), and blew themselves up?
These are complex issues, that won't ultimately be solved by goons in jackboots; that's been tried, didn't end well. We need to maintain civilised values, proportional responses and the rule of law; otherwise the f*ckers win.
Your bullying tone and total lack of ability to understand other people's arguments perfectly illustrates the concerns that many of us have.
1) Of course it's self evident that if you lock up a known terrorist, then they will not be able to commit any further atrocities. Duh. Do not award yourself any points for that stunning insight.
2) It is equally self evident that if you lock everyone up who might be, or might become, a terrorist, then you're going to need a pretty big prison and one that is going to be self defeating, as we saw with the Maze (look it up - the UK's very own Guantanamo). You will end up radicalising many people who would otherwise have looked for political solutions. (Check out the origins of the Troubles in 1972. The British Army was originally WELCOMED by the Catholics, but the heavy handed tactics, Internment and their apparent bias to the Loyalist cause radicalised a whole generation of Catholics, and we're living with the consequences to this day.)
3) So the issue becomes one of balance, and the rule of law: maintaining a policy that is defensible and fair on self defence and reasonable probability grounds, without demonising or radicalising whole swathes of our own population who otherwise have precisely the same interests as everyone else. The desire for a peaceful life, a degree of prosperity and a better future for their kids.
You keep pathetically ranting on about 'what is the alternative' - the alternative to what? Locking up everyone who has ever been to Syria or Afghanistan? Locking up everybody who the US intelligence (hah!) has ever had an anonymous tip-off about? Locking up everybody who's ever been in contact with someone who later went totally off the rails (most of these jihadists are patently inadequate and mostly dim, this idea that they are cutting edge razor sharp technologists is plain wrong), and blew themselves up?
These are complex issues, that won't ultimately be solved by goons in jackboots; that's been tried, didn't end well. We need to maintain civilised values, proportional responses and the rule of law; otherwise the f*ckers win.
6
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
'Far more likely I'll be caught up in an ISIS inspired blood bath next time I go to watch the football.'
That's happened how often, exactly?
'Far more likely I'll be caught up in an ISIS inspired blood bath next time I go to watch the football.'
That's happened how often, exactly?
2
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Every single one - how do you know?
Why not just let the intelligence services monitor them?
Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay'). Some of the people I've learnt about have been fellow countrymen of terrorists who happened to be associating with them in the months leading up to 9/11, while being innocent too. That you're happy enough with human rights being reduced for 'other' people, is exactly why we need human rights laws to be adhered to, to guard against this aspect of human nature - which minds less about bad things happening to 'others'. Do you genuinely have solid grounds for thinking that ALL 17 British detainees have been guilty of terror offences for which evidence is lacking (these 'other' people)?
I think the statistical probability of you being caught up in a terror attack has already been covered.
> I don't think that your scenario applies to the 17 British Guantanamo detainees that this debate has been based around - I don't think the issue is whether or not they are terrorists - they are.
Every single one - how do you know?
> more, should we detain people who we know to be terrorists, based on intelligence that cannot be used in court, when we don't have the evidence to convict them.
Why not just let the intelligence services monitor them?
> Oh, as someone who doesn't travel to Syria for weapons training, hang out with known terrorists or preach about radical Islam, I don't think it's very likely that I will end-up as one of the unfortunate few innocent detainees.
Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay'). Some of the people I've learnt about have been fellow countrymen of terrorists who happened to be associating with them in the months leading up to 9/11, while being innocent too. That you're happy enough with human rights being reduced for 'other' people, is exactly why we need human rights laws to be adhered to, to guard against this aspect of human nature - which minds less about bad things happening to 'others'. Do you genuinely have solid grounds for thinking that ALL 17 British detainees have been guilty of terror offences for which evidence is lacking (these 'other' people)?
> Far more likely I'll be caught up in an ISIS inspired blood bath next time I go to watch the football.
I think the statistical probability of you being caught up in a terror attack has already been covered.
Post edited at 22:33
2
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Sir
What is your filling of W of M.D , Chicken Tikka or pork and stuffing , don't include the veggie option ?
> Dude, seriously. That's an outrageous suggestion.I won't support any policy that breaches the rights of Cornish Pasties (or meaty snacks in general).
Sir
What is your filling of W of M.D , Chicken Tikka or pork and stuffing , don't include the veggie option ?
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
To answer the points you raised:
1.) You've shown more insight than many of your fellow posters. So you get a point, whether you want one or not.
2.) I never said that.
3.) I agree, we need to maintain the rule of law.
Please suggest an alternative course of action. Clearly, the status-quo is unacceptable.
Oh, and I'm sorry that you feel bullied. Might I suggest a 20 min break in your safe space?
To answer the points you raised:
1.) You've shown more insight than many of your fellow posters. So you get a point, whether you want one or not.
2.) I never said that.
3.) I agree, we need to maintain the rule of law.
Please suggest an alternative course of action. Clearly, the status-quo is unacceptable.
Oh, and I'm sorry that you feel bullied. Might I suggest a 20 min break in your safe space?
Post edited at 22:38
1
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
'That's happened how often, exactly?
Quite a lot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
'That's happened how often, exactly?
Quite a lot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
1
In reply to Albert Tatlock:
Albert,
I once had a haggis pasty.
If you were to stick it in the micro-wave for half an hour it'd probably wipe out an entire city block.
Yours,
Walrus (The)
Albert,
I once had a haggis pasty.
If you were to stick it in the micro-wave for half an hour it'd probably wipe out an entire city block.
Yours,
Walrus (The)
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Man devoid of insight appoints self to award insight points
> 1.) You've shown more insight than many of your fellow posters. So you get a point, whether you want one or not.
Man devoid of insight appoints self to award insight points
Post edited at 22:58
4
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
4 attacks in the uk since 1994 on your evidence from wiki.
Pretty damn good compared to the days of my youth when terrorism in the uk was on a weekly/monthly basis.
> 'That's happened how often, exactly?Quite a lot:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
4 attacks in the uk since 1994 on your evidence from wiki.
Pretty damn good compared to the days of my youth when terrorism in the uk was on a weekly/monthly basis.
Post edited at 23:42
3
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
It's only due to vigilance that society is safe.
Britain faces a level of terror threat not seen since the IRA bombings of the 1970s, according to a new watchdog.
Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, told the Sunday Telegraph that Islamist extremists were targeting UK cities.
He credited the effectiveness of the intelligence services in limiting the level of threat to Britain.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39093389
It's only due to vigilance that society is safe.
Britain faces a level of terror threat not seen since the IRA bombings of the 1970s, according to a new watchdog.
Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, told the Sunday Telegraph that Islamist extremists were targeting UK cities.
He credited the effectiveness of the intelligence services in limiting the level of threat to Britain.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39093389
In reply to Big Ger:
Yeah, 'vanishingly small', eh?!
I'm sure the security services are delighted that they've got another 16 lunatics to keep tabs on, who had previously been safely locked away in Cuba.
Yeah, 'vanishingly small', eh?!
I'm sure the security services are delighted that they've got another 16 lunatics to keep tabs on, who had previously been safely locked away in Cuba.
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
So, dead French, German, Canadian, Turkish, Iraqi and Afghan people don't count, then?
What sort of a bleeding heart liberal are you??!
So, dead French, German, Canadian, Turkish, Iraqi and Afghan people don't count, then?
What sort of a bleeding heart liberal are you??!
3
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Why don't you want terrorist suspects to be tried in an open court?
I have suggested this twice on this thread as have others, and still you keep asking for alternatives to Guantanamo.
Why don't you want terrorist suspects to be tried in an open court?
I have suggested this twice on this thread as have others, and still you keep asking for alternatives to Guantanamo.
1
In reply to Timmd:
Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay').
Eh? You asked ME if I was happy with all of the consequences of my suggestions....so I replied that I was!
I'd be happy to reply on behalf of the 'royal we' (again), if you'd prefer...
Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay').
Eh? You asked ME if I was happy with all of the consequences of my suggestions....so I replied that I was!
I'd be happy to reply on behalf of the 'royal we' (again), if you'd prefer...
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You've no way of knowing that locking people up without trial prevents more deaths than it causes, and clearly the risk of being killed by a terrorist is tiny.
You've no way of knowing that locking people up without trial prevents more deaths than it causes, and clearly the risk of being killed by a terrorist is tiny.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Ok, ok - here it is, again.
Take Gerry Adams as an example, a terrorist and murderer who was never convicted of anything, despite attracting the best efforts of MI5, the RUC and the military. Agreed?
Why?
Well, despite mountains of INTELLIGENCE - enough to allow 'us' to largely diffuse the threat, infiltrate the IRA and prevent many of the attacks, we didn't actually have any EVIDENCE.
Information from informants, telecoms intercepts, fragments of finger-prints and DNA - INTELLIGENCE ONLY. It won't get you anywhere in court.
This was because the IRA ran a slick operation. Witnesses were intimidated or killed, forensic evidence was destroyed in the bomb blast or never left at the scene in the first place, CCTV 'vanished' before the police could get hold of it, jury's were nobbled and political pressure was applied.
Indeed, as recently as last year, when Gerry Adams was arrested for his involvement in one of the more notorious murders of The Troubles, Martin McGuiness (another never convicted terrorist) threatened to reverse the peace process if he wasn't released.
What did we learn from this?
These people were smart, their lawyers were even smarter and, in the violent society they created, the rule of law could not be enforced by the normal means of a 'fair and open trial'.
Multiply this problem by 'X' for all of the many unsolved murders of this period.
So, how does this apply to the ISIS threat?
We still need EVIDENCE, and we rarely have enough to convict the people who seek to attack us. If we did, there would be no need for Guantanamo.
Take the Paris attackers. At what point could we convict them?
When they become radicalised? No, this is not an offence.
When they travel to Syria? No. They haven't commit an offence yet?
When they receive weapons training? Still no. They haven't committed any offence if they do this where possession of high velocity weapons is legal.
When they start fighting Jihad? This is an offence, but only if the join a 'proscribed organisation'. But how are you going to prove it? Witness (on a Syrian battlefield!). CCTV? You're unlikely to be able to prove it. So, still no arrest!
When they return to France? Nope. Still no offence. If you can't prove that they were fighting with a proscribed organisation, you still have no evidence.
When they decide to attack 'the west'. Nope. Thought Crime isn't a crime!
When they prepare their attacks. Yes, preparing acts of terror is an offence. But, these people are smart. They don't use briefing documents anymore, or power-points. You're still in the realms of 'thought crime'. Still, no evidence!
When they obtain their weapons and launch the attack? Yes. But it may well be too late.
Do you see the point I'm trying to get at?
Rather than hope the security forces can strike at the last minute, I prefer the Guantanamo approach and the safety that this brings, despite its many problems.
> Why don't you want terrorist suspects to be tried in an open court?
Ok, ok - here it is, again.
Take Gerry Adams as an example, a terrorist and murderer who was never convicted of anything, despite attracting the best efforts of MI5, the RUC and the military. Agreed?
Why?
Well, despite mountains of INTELLIGENCE - enough to allow 'us' to largely diffuse the threat, infiltrate the IRA and prevent many of the attacks, we didn't actually have any EVIDENCE.
Information from informants, telecoms intercepts, fragments of finger-prints and DNA - INTELLIGENCE ONLY. It won't get you anywhere in court.
This was because the IRA ran a slick operation. Witnesses were intimidated or killed, forensic evidence was destroyed in the bomb blast or never left at the scene in the first place, CCTV 'vanished' before the police could get hold of it, jury's were nobbled and political pressure was applied.
Indeed, as recently as last year, when Gerry Adams was arrested for his involvement in one of the more notorious murders of The Troubles, Martin McGuiness (another never convicted terrorist) threatened to reverse the peace process if he wasn't released.
What did we learn from this?
These people were smart, their lawyers were even smarter and, in the violent society they created, the rule of law could not be enforced by the normal means of a 'fair and open trial'.
Multiply this problem by 'X' for all of the many unsolved murders of this period.
So, how does this apply to the ISIS threat?
We still need EVIDENCE, and we rarely have enough to convict the people who seek to attack us. If we did, there would be no need for Guantanamo.
Take the Paris attackers. At what point could we convict them?
When they become radicalised? No, this is not an offence.
When they travel to Syria? No. They haven't commit an offence yet?
When they receive weapons training? Still no. They haven't committed any offence if they do this where possession of high velocity weapons is legal.
When they start fighting Jihad? This is an offence, but only if the join a 'proscribed organisation'. But how are you going to prove it? Witness (on a Syrian battlefield!). CCTV? You're unlikely to be able to prove it. So, still no arrest!
When they return to France? Nope. Still no offence. If you can't prove that they were fighting with a proscribed organisation, you still have no evidence.
When they decide to attack 'the west'. Nope. Thought Crime isn't a crime!
When they prepare their attacks. Yes, preparing acts of terror is an offence. But, these people are smart. They don't use briefing documents anymore, or power-points. You're still in the realms of 'thought crime'. Still, no evidence!
When they obtain their weapons and launch the attack? Yes. But it may well be too late.
Do you see the point I'm trying to get at?
Rather than hope the security forces can strike at the last minute, I prefer the Guantanamo approach and the safety that this brings, despite its many problems.
Post edited at 08:49
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Would you be happy if it were your son being carted off to an internment camp for your protection? No explanation as to why, no available pathway to challenge it, no hope of seeing him again. Just assurances from anonymous men with guns that it's for everyone's protection. I mean they were probably right when the carted of Jamil and Mohamed from down the road, they must have done something to deserve it...
The thing is it's always someone else's rights you're willing to see violated for your protection, you either feel some residual entitlement, British born, white, went to Sunday school, whatever will protect you our you're too dim to understand that accepting and supporting a world in which the human rights of others are routinely violated voids yours and those of the people you love and seek to protect. They're universal and we stand together to defend them or they're worthless. A world in which we have fundamental rights, where we can protect each other from the powerful is a far better one than that which came before.
I'd suggest a chat with someone that has suffered arbitrary detention and a good hard think about whether their suffering was worth it.
jk
> Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay'). Eh? You asked ME if I was happy with all of the consequences of my suggestions....so I replied that I was! I'd be happy to reply on behalf of the 'royal we' (again), if you'd prefer...
Would you be happy if it were your son being carted off to an internment camp for your protection? No explanation as to why, no available pathway to challenge it, no hope of seeing him again. Just assurances from anonymous men with guns that it's for everyone's protection. I mean they were probably right when the carted of Jamil and Mohamed from down the road, they must have done something to deserve it...
The thing is it's always someone else's rights you're willing to see violated for your protection, you either feel some residual entitlement, British born, white, went to Sunday school, whatever will protect you our you're too dim to understand that accepting and supporting a world in which the human rights of others are routinely violated voids yours and those of the people you love and seek to protect. They're universal and we stand together to defend them or they're worthless. A world in which we have fundamental rights, where we can protect each other from the powerful is a far better one than that which came before.
I'd suggest a chat with someone that has suffered arbitrary detention and a good hard think about whether their suffering was worth it.
jk
Post edited at 09:40
4
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
In fact Martin McGuinness was convicted of being a member of the IRA in 1973 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9358634/Martin-McGui... but that's a side show.
If you think ISIS are such a massive threat to your life that it's better to live without the rule of law, then they have beaten you.
In fact Martin McGuinness was convicted of being a member of the IRA in 1973 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9358634/Martin-McGui... but that's a side show.
If you think ISIS are such a massive threat to your life that it's better to live without the rule of law, then they have beaten you.
4
3
In reply to jkarran:
There's two sides to that story. Maybe you should have a chat with the relatives of the victims of the Paris and Brussels attack, find out how happy they are about the fact that people had to die because the authorities were powerless to stop people who they knew to be terrorists...
There's two sides to that story. Maybe you should have a chat with the relatives of the victims of the Paris and Brussels attack, find out how happy they are about the fact that people had to die because the authorities were powerless to stop people who they knew to be terrorists...
Post edited at 09:50
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
for men of my age the risk of terrorism is entirely trivial compared with death from heart disease (I only have to throw a 6 it seems) or prostate cancer
for very young men it is trivial compared with the chances of death or injury in a RTA or suicide
I concede that there is a reasonable probability that some people will die as a result of terrorism, as they did in numbers in the 70s and 80s in UK and Europe
for men of my age the risk of terrorism is entirely trivial compared with death from heart disease (I only have to throw a 6 it seems) or prostate cancer
for very young men it is trivial compared with the chances of death or injury in a RTA or suicide
I concede that there is a reasonable probability that some people will die as a result of terrorism, as they did in numbers in the 70s and 80s in UK and Europe
Post edited at 09:53
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I do know relatives of some of the Paris victims, in particular the sister in law of one of the Charlie Hebdo victims, she would be one of the first to say that you're talking rubbish & effectively saying that the terrorists have won as we've lost of way of life
I do know relatives of some of the Paris victims, in particular the sister in law of one of the Charlie Hebdo victims, she would be one of the first to say that you're talking rubbish & effectively saying that the terrorists have won as we've lost of way of life
2
2
1
In reply to jkarran:
Interesting that you appear to have dodged my post of 08.48.
Fancy dropping the high minded waffle and dealing with the practicalities?
Interesting that you appear to have dodged my post of 08.48.
Fancy dropping the high minded waffle and dealing with the practicalities?
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You clearly didn't see the amount of support got stirred up in Birmingham over Bobby Sands. An IRA fund raising coop if ever there was one.
You clearly didn't see the amount of support got stirred up in Birmingham over Bobby Sands. An IRA fund raising coop if ever there was one.
1
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Sadly I know first hand how it feels losing a friend to potentially preventable pointless violence.
Regarding your next post to me, I didn't dodge you post, I've said what I want to say on the matter and others have covered the rest of it far more eloquently than I could. I see little point in rehashing their arguments and frankly I'm struggling not to be rude to you.
jk
> There's two sides to that story. Maybe you should have a chat with the relatives of the victims of the Paris and Brussels attack, find out how happy they are about the fact that people had to die because the authorities were powerless to stop people who they knew to be terrorists...
Sadly I know first hand how it feels losing a friend to potentially preventable pointless violence.
Regarding your next post to me, I didn't dodge you post, I've said what I want to say on the matter and others have covered the rest of it far more eloquently than I could. I see little point in rehashing their arguments and frankly I'm struggling not to be rude to you.
jk
Post edited at 10:10
2
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Morning.
>Unlike the heroes of Team America, I rather doubt that Archbishop Langton had come-up against a suicide bomber in a supermarket...
The thing was, that rather than an errant serf filing a cart with gunpowder and exploding it in a busy market, they still had a terrorism problem. OK it wasn't called terrorism, as such. The local knight might get together several thousand armed men, march on London, attempt to kill the king and over throw the country. Possibly a more real and immediate threat to the country, than a small bunch of god bothers who get a lot of PR.
In fact, throughout UK history, there have been quite a lot of these 'terrorist knights' and yet the Magna Carta is still the basis of English law. I don't doubt that a fair few trouble makers were 'dealt with' on the quiet. But, in all those centuries of turmoil, where there was a very real and well armed threat to the crown, it stood the test of time.
Morning.
>Unlike the heroes of Team America, I rather doubt that Archbishop Langton had come-up against a suicide bomber in a supermarket...
The thing was, that rather than an errant serf filing a cart with gunpowder and exploding it in a busy market, they still had a terrorism problem. OK it wasn't called terrorism, as such. The local knight might get together several thousand armed men, march on London, attempt to kill the king and over throw the country. Possibly a more real and immediate threat to the country, than a small bunch of god bothers who get a lot of PR.
In fact, throughout UK history, there have been quite a lot of these 'terrorist knights' and yet the Magna Carta is still the basis of English law. I don't doubt that a fair few trouble makers were 'dealt with' on the quiet. But, in all those centuries of turmoil, where there was a very real and well armed threat to the crown, it stood the test of time.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>Oh, as someone who doesn't travel to Syria for weapons training, hang out with known terrorists or preach about radical Islam, I don't think it's very likely that I will end-up as one of the unfortunate few innocent detainees.
I note from your profile, that you travel in Africa. The place is full of terrorists and former terrorists. Christian terrorists, Muslim terrorists, communists, anti colonialists, anti apartheid terrorists (though we kinda got that one wrong, thanks Maggie.)
And you go to south America as well? Crikey! I don't think there are many governments in south America that the CIA haven't attempted to over throw; backing groups that may be considered terrorist.
I'm beginning to think your a wrong'un. Is there a hot line I can call? No? Perhaps you can add some stones to that pile you keep in your glass house.
edited to add:
>Oh, as someone who doesn't travel to Syria for weapons training, hang out with known terrorists or preach about radical Islam, I don't think it's very likely that I will end-up as one of the unfortunate few innocent detainees.
I note from your profile, that you travel in Africa. The place is full of terrorists and former terrorists. Christian terrorists, Muslim terrorists, communists, anti colonialists, anti apartheid terrorists (though we kinda got that one wrong, thanks Maggie.)
And you go to south America as well? Crikey! I don't think there are many governments in south America that the CIA haven't attempted to over throw; backing groups that may be considered terrorist.
I'm beginning to think your a wrong'un. Is there a hot line I can call? No? Perhaps you can add some stones to that pile you keep in your glass house.
edited to add:
Post edited at 10:38
2
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Hopefully one day you'll be accused of a crime you didn't commit, and you can then tell us how lovely it was and how you bear no ill feeling towards your captors. May it be a long and fruitfully incarceration.
Hopefully one day you'll be accused of a crime you didn't commit, and you can then tell us how lovely it was and how you bear no ill feeling towards your captors. May it be a long and fruitfully incarceration.
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Detaining a suspect indefinitely is illegal in the UK.
If you can't or won't see that internment is a massively counterproductive strategy then further debate is futile.
> I support the rule of law.
Detaining a suspect indefinitely is illegal in the UK.
If you can't or won't see that internment is a massively counterproductive strategy then further debate is futile.
5
2
Does anyone actually want to deal with the issues raised at 0848, which demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in the approach you all advocate?
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
It illuminates nothing, it's a rambling attempt at a justification for locking people up without charge that boils down to you thinking the end justifies the means and nothing bad will happen to you or anyone you care about as a result of surrendering your human rights. Nor do you apparently acknowledge the propaganda value in mistreating people this way. There's no point going over it all again, you've had the issues as others see them clearly and concisely explained to you several times.
Your choice of NI to support your argument to me seems odd given the people you would apparently see locked up indefinitely without charge are the few who had the power and credibility to bring that war to an end. Were they still rotting in Maze, martyrs to their cause rather than retiring from government after nearly two decades of peace we very probably would still have bombs going off regularly in city centers all over Britain. How many more might have died in those years to satisfy your desire to see suspected terrorists locked up?
jk
> Does anyone actually want to deal with the issues raised at 0848, which demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in the approach you all advocate?
It illuminates nothing, it's a rambling attempt at a justification for locking people up without charge that boils down to you thinking the end justifies the means and nothing bad will happen to you or anyone you care about as a result of surrendering your human rights. Nor do you apparently acknowledge the propaganda value in mistreating people this way. There's no point going over it all again, you've had the issues as others see them clearly and concisely explained to you several times.
Your choice of NI to support your argument to me seems odd given the people you would apparently see locked up indefinitely without charge are the few who had the power and credibility to bring that war to an end. Were they still rotting in Maze, martyrs to their cause rather than retiring from government after nearly two decades of peace we very probably would still have bombs going off regularly in city centers all over Britain. How many more might have died in those years to satisfy your desire to see suspected terrorists locked up?
jk
6
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You don't appear to know what it is, from your statements in this thread.
> I support the rule of law.
You don't appear to know what it is, from your statements in this thread.
3
1
In reply to jkarran:
No it's a pragmatic 'case study' demonstrating the weaknesses of the current system.
If you disagree with the detail, debate me.
No it's a pragmatic 'case study' demonstrating the weaknesses of the current system.
If you disagree with the detail, debate me.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Then how can you think Guantanamo was a good thing FFS!
They were only there because "legally" they couldn't be held on American soil, so they bent the rules to suit their laws.
While in the real world everyone knew they were breaking the law. The same as we did delivering people to Gaddafi.
Not "Extraordinary Rendition" but kidnapping.
> I support the rule of law.
Then how can you think Guantanamo was a good thing FFS!
They were only there because "legally" they couldn't be held on American soil, so they bent the rules to suit their laws.
While in the real world everyone knew they were breaking the law. The same as we did delivering people to Gaddafi.
Not "Extraordinary Rendition" but kidnapping.
2
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
If the British government and its Irish partners/allies were blameless and ran an unblemished operation that was whiter than white and wholly in line with the law, then yes, all the Provos fault. Except we didn't.
Your argument is about point scoring when the right thing would be to look at the end game i.e. a workable peace. With the Irish, that came about from dialogue, understanding, dealing with characters that might, let's say, have a disreputable history etc.
Fools like you seem to learn nothing from history. We have to be the better man.
> Does anyone actually want to deal with the issues raised at 0848, which demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in the approach you all advocate?
If the British government and its Irish partners/allies were blameless and ran an unblemished operation that was whiter than white and wholly in line with the law, then yes, all the Provos fault. Except we didn't.
Your argument is about point scoring when the right thing would be to look at the end game i.e. a workable peace. With the Irish, that came about from dialogue, understanding, dealing with characters that might, let's say, have a disreputable history etc.
Fools like you seem to learn nothing from history. We have to be the better man.
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
What's the point, you clearly don't understand (or don't want to understand) the points that have been explained very clearly several times.
> If you disagree with the detail, debate me.
What's the point, you clearly don't understand (or don't want to understand) the points that have been explained very clearly several times.
7
1
In reply to krikoman:
Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.
It's stops them committing, for example, mass murder.
Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.
It's stops them committing, for example, mass murder.
1
1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
But the IRA haven't gone away...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-i...
But the IRA haven't gone away...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-i...
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
There's nothing to debate, I've explained my views, I accept there are weaknesses in the current solution but I believe we get the liberty security balance about right, there are weaknesses and costs to any potential solution. There isn't much middle ground between our differing views on which we're willing to agree and we probably each think the other is a naive fool for being unable to see things differently. C'est la vie.
jk
There's nothing to debate, I've explained my views, I accept there are weaknesses in the current solution but I believe we get the liberty security balance about right, there are weaknesses and costs to any potential solution. There isn't much middle ground between our differing views on which we're willing to agree and we probably each think the other is a naive fool for being unable to see things differently. C'est la vie.
jk
3
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I know I should be doing something more productive, but it's nearly lunchtime so I'll bite.
One of the things we have got right int the UK is our judicial system. Charges are brought before a jury, cases are made with legal representation on both sides, evidence is presented and 12 of your peers weigh that evidence and decide on guilt or innocence. If a miscarriage of justice occurs, new evidence emerges, or whatever there is an appeals process which can go through several stages right up to the supreme court. Over the course of centuries we have established rules for what constitutes evidence, in order to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt, and those rules can and will be further refined in future, as will the laws which are contravened resulting in the trial in the first place.
You kept rambling on about how we 'knew' various facts about the IRA but that it wasn't 'evidence'. I would suspect that some (or possibly, most) of the stuff the security services knew about the IRA was not disclosed because it would have compromised security service personel, rather than because it was not sufficient to prove a case. The same is possibly true of our current foe, ISIS.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence - e.g. "A travelled to Pakistan, crossed into Afganistan then went to Syria" would be part of a case and would be weighed by the jury *along with other evidence* - like records of phone calls, emails, posts to social media, forensics, yada yada.
Final point: if the law as it stands does not proscribe violent jihadis, then the solution is to pass a law that does, and prosecute as above those that break it.
I know I should be doing something more productive, but it's nearly lunchtime so I'll bite.
One of the things we have got right int the UK is our judicial system. Charges are brought before a jury, cases are made with legal representation on both sides, evidence is presented and 12 of your peers weigh that evidence and decide on guilt or innocence. If a miscarriage of justice occurs, new evidence emerges, or whatever there is an appeals process which can go through several stages right up to the supreme court. Over the course of centuries we have established rules for what constitutes evidence, in order to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt, and those rules can and will be further refined in future, as will the laws which are contravened resulting in the trial in the first place.
You kept rambling on about how we 'knew' various facts about the IRA but that it wasn't 'evidence'. I would suspect that some (or possibly, most) of the stuff the security services knew about the IRA was not disclosed because it would have compromised security service personel, rather than because it was not sufficient to prove a case. The same is possibly true of our current foe, ISIS.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence - e.g. "A travelled to Pakistan, crossed into Afganistan then went to Syria" would be part of a case and would be weighed by the jury *along with other evidence* - like records of phone calls, emails, posts to social media, forensics, yada yada.
Final point: if the law as it stands does not proscribe violent jihadis, then the solution is to pass a law that does, and prosecute as above those that break it.
4
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Christ you're stubborn, I'll give you that.
Totally incapable of assessing or evaluating a point of view different to your own but stubborn, yes indeed.
Christ you're stubborn, I'll give you that.
Totally incapable of assessing or evaluating a point of view different to your own but stubborn, yes indeed.
5
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
What?
You've either quoted my post out of context, or misunderstood it.
> Which is exactly the problem ('I'm alright - so that's okay'). Eh? You asked ME if I was happy with all of the consequences of my suggestions....so I replied that I was! I'd be happy to reply on behalf of the 'royal we' (again), if you'd prefer...
What?
You've either quoted my post out of context, or misunderstood it.
Post edited at 13:47
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Yes, no-one on this thread disputes that (that I have seen). You want to imprison them when we can't demonstrate they have broken the law. That's exactly the problem.
> Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.It's stops them committing, for example, mass murder.
Yes, no-one on this thread disputes that (that I have seen). You want to imprison them when we can't demonstrate they have broken the law. That's exactly the problem.
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
A fat lot of good locking them up did, then. Hmmmn?
''Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.''
Perhaps it isn't locking people up which will ultimately protect us from terrorism?
> But the IRA haven't gone away...https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-i...
A fat lot of good locking them up did, then. Hmmmn?
''Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.''
Perhaps it isn't locking people up which will ultimately protect us from terrorism?
Post edited at 13:49
2
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:
That he can't (or won't) put himself in the place of others is rather worrying.
> You want to imprison them when we can't demonstrate they have broken the law. That's exactly the problem.
That he can't (or won't) put himself in the place of others is rather worrying.
Post edited at 13:52
2
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
But how do you know they are terrorist's when they never get a trail?
Who decides?
What if someone decides you're a terrorist? Then you get no form of trial or representation.
Many of the people who were in Guantanamo were there because paid informers said they were terrorists.
How the f*ck is that justice, or a platform for any sort of legal system?
> Terrorists break the law, incarcerating them prevents them from doing so.It's stops them committing, for example, mass murder.
But how do you know they are terrorist's when they never get a trail?
Who decides?
What if someone decides you're a terrorist? Then you get no form of trial or representation.
Many of the people who were in Guantanamo were there because paid informers said they were terrorists.
How the f*ck is that justice, or a platform for any sort of legal system?
4
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Blimey, I really don't know how many times I need to explain this - read carefully.
I understand and agree with your concerns that detention without charge is both illegal and morally wrong.
I also understand agree with the concerns that detention without charge serves to inflame the status quo and assists in recruiting terrorists.
I also agree with the other points that have been repeatedly raised concerning innocent people being incarcerated and that I would not like that person to be me.
However, I feel that these risks are outweighed by the dangers highlighted in my post of 0848 this morning and that incarceration without charge solves the problems of known attackers turning their guns on us, freeing up the over-stretched security services to hunt down the clean skins.
I note with interest that only Andy Hardy has attempted to counter this post - the rest of you have resorted to Ad Hominam attacks and near-endless repetition of your previous comments.
If you don't want to debate the issue, dont wast your time posting.
Blimey, I really don't know how many times I need to explain this - read carefully.
I understand and agree with your concerns that detention without charge is both illegal and morally wrong.
I also understand agree with the concerns that detention without charge serves to inflame the status quo and assists in recruiting terrorists.
I also agree with the other points that have been repeatedly raised concerning innocent people being incarcerated and that I would not like that person to be me.
However, I feel that these risks are outweighed by the dangers highlighted in my post of 0848 this morning and that incarceration without charge solves the problems of known attackers turning their guns on us, freeing up the over-stretched security services to hunt down the clean skins.
I note with interest that only Andy Hardy has attempted to counter this post - the rest of you have resorted to Ad Hominam attacks and near-endless repetition of your previous comments.
If you don't want to debate the issue, dont wast your time posting.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Waste of time all these laws and courts and stuff, we should put you in charge of it all, then the wrong 'uns could be banged up good and proper and the ones wot are innocent (like if they are innocent why did they get arrested eh? eh?) could get let out.
Waste of time all these laws and courts and stuff, we should put you in charge of it all, then the wrong 'uns could be banged up good and proper and the ones wot are innocent (like if they are innocent why did they get arrested eh? eh?) could get let out.
2
2
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I agree with some of your points. However, I would argue that the judicial system struggles to cope with terrorist, for the reasons given in my Gerry Adams example.
Regardless of what the security service knew, if it didn't end up in court, it wasn't evidence. This is my point - 'we' know that some of these people are terrorists who are guilty of murder but we can't introduce that evidence in court so we can't convict them. I am comfortable incarcerating such people without trial.
The rules on circumstantial evidence state that it can be used to strengthen the case, but not to prove it. Thus my Paris / Belgium attackers 'case study' - very strong circumstantial evidence at an early stage, but not enough evidence to charge them until they are armed-up and ready to go. In my view, this is too late.
Telecom intercepts are not admissible as evidence, regardless of their content. You can't even allude to them in court - so the phone records you refer to are not admissible, even if they contain damning 'evidence'.
In other words, a member of the security could listen in on phone conversations in which terrorist attacks are planned and put into action...but he would not be able to arrest these people until he catches them in the act. Again, I am comfortable to incarcerate these people without trial.
Making a terrorist organision 'proscribed' after the fact is unlikely to work - you couldn't convict anyone if the organisation wasn't proscribed at the time they joined it.
I agree with some of your points. However, I would argue that the judicial system struggles to cope with terrorist, for the reasons given in my Gerry Adams example.
Regardless of what the security service knew, if it didn't end up in court, it wasn't evidence. This is my point - 'we' know that some of these people are terrorists who are guilty of murder but we can't introduce that evidence in court so we can't convict them. I am comfortable incarcerating such people without trial.
The rules on circumstantial evidence state that it can be used to strengthen the case, but not to prove it. Thus my Paris / Belgium attackers 'case study' - very strong circumstantial evidence at an early stage, but not enough evidence to charge them until they are armed-up and ready to go. In my view, this is too late.
Telecom intercepts are not admissible as evidence, regardless of their content. You can't even allude to them in court - so the phone records you refer to are not admissible, even if they contain damning 'evidence'.
In other words, a member of the security could listen in on phone conversations in which terrorist attacks are planned and put into action...but he would not be able to arrest these people until he catches them in the act. Again, I am comfortable to incarcerate these people without trial.
Making a terrorist organision 'proscribed' after the fact is unlikely to work - you couldn't convict anyone if the organisation wasn't proscribed at the time they joined it.
Post edited at 15:01
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Perhaps you should write to your MP if you feel so strongly that your human rights are an unnecessary encumbrance.
jk
Perhaps you should write to your MP if you feel so strongly that your human rights are an unnecessary encumbrance.
jk
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
"Telecom intercepts are not admissible as evidence, regardless of their content. You can't even allude to them in court - so the phone records you refer to are not admissible, even if they contain damning 'evidence'."
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll believe you, however the rules regarding admissable evidence could be altered / ammended *to improve* the judicial system *so it could* deal effectively with terrorism. If you just lock them up you are giving them the victim status they want, and you have lost.
"Telecom intercepts are not admissible as evidence, regardless of their content. You can't even allude to them in court - so the phone records you refer to are not admissible, even if they contain damning 'evidence'."
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll believe you, however the rules regarding admissable evidence could be altered / ammended *to improve* the judicial system *so it could* deal effectively with terrorism. If you just lock them up you are giving them the victim status they want, and you have lost.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Wouldn't it be better to allow wire-tap evidence in court than to lock people up without trial and thereby undermine the whole basis of the justice system? Like, err, actually happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime
Wouldn't it be better to allow wire-tap evidence in court than to lock people up without trial and thereby undermine the whole basis of the justice system? Like, err, actually happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime
Post edited at 15:51
3
1
In reply to MG:
It might be, but the Chilcot review (from which Gordon Brown's comments in the article you linked were taken) concluded that - having looked at the area in detail - it wouldn't.
> Wouldn't it be better to allow wire-tap evidence in court than to lock people up without trial and thereby undermine the whole basis of the justice system? Like, err, actually happens.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime
It might be, but the Chilcot review (from which Gordon Brown's comments in the article you linked were taken) concluded that - having looked at the area in detail - it wouldn't.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I suspect that it was not only intercept evidence but also intelligence from informants and other sources that might have been required to be revealed in some of these cases.
And "lost" appears to be in the sense that the "loser" is the one who has prevented the "winner' from killing him.
> "Telecom intercepts are not admissible as evidence, regardless of their content. You can't even allude to them in court - so the phone records you refer to are not admissible, even if they contain damning 'evidence'."I'm not a lawyer, so I'll believe you, however the rules regarding admissable evidence could be altered / ammended *to improve* the judicial system *so it could* deal effectively with terrorism. If you just lock them up you are giving them the victim status they want, and you have lost.
I suspect that it was not only intercept evidence but also intelligence from informants and other sources that might have been required to be revealed in some of these cases.
And "lost" appears to be in the sense that the "loser" is the one who has prevented the "winner' from killing him.
In reply to off-duty:
"lost" refers to the one who has given the terrorist what they want. Admittedly it is easier to lock up a suspect forever, but they want this too.
If the rules around evidence in these cases requires changing, then dhanges could be made to protect the security services sources, whilst still being sufficient to support a conviction.
"lost" refers to the one who has given the terrorist what they want. Admittedly it is easier to lock up a suspect forever, but they want this too.
If the rules around evidence in these cases requires changing, then dhanges could be made to protect the security services sources, whilst still being sufficient to support a conviction.
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
A terrorist wants to be locked up? And locked up forever?
An easy win there. Or loss, I'm getting confused now.
>If the rules around evidence in these cases requires changing, then dhanges could be made to protect the security services sources, whilst still being sufficient to support a conviction.
Luckily we do, closed material proceedings, introduced partially as a result of this type of civil court blackmail by terrorists.
> "lost" refers to the one who has given the terrorist what they want. Admittedly it is easier to lock up a suspect forever, but they want this too.
A terrorist wants to be locked up? And locked up forever?
An easy win there. Or loss, I'm getting confused now.
>If the rules around evidence in these cases requires changing, then dhanges could be made to protect the security services sources, whilst still being sufficient to support a conviction.
Luckily we do, closed material proceedings, introduced partially as a result of this type of civil court blackmail by terrorists.
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
And how would you have classed Nelson Mandella?
For years we were told he was a terrorist, then suddenly he's a god like figure that every politician and pop star were falling over themselves to have their selfies taken with him.
so what would YOU have done to him?
and there's always Ghandi Gee how long would you have kept him in Guantanamo?
And how would you have classed Nelson Mandella?
For years we were told he was a terrorist, then suddenly he's a god like figure that every politician and pop star were falling over themselves to have their selfies taken with him.
so what would YOU have done to him?
and there's always Ghandi Gee how long would you have kept him in Guantanamo?
2
2
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Not sure where you get that from in a discussion about the definition of a "winner".
> I must say I'm surprised that you favour internment over trial by jury.
Not sure where you get that from in a discussion about the definition of a "winner".
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Allegedly because he was informing on his PIRA mates left right and centre....
> Ok, ok - here it is, again.Take Gerry Adams as an example, a terrorist and murderer who was never convicted of anything, despite attracting the best efforts of MI5, the RUC and the military. Agreed?Why?
Allegedly because he was informing on his PIRA mates left right and centre....
In reply to MG:
Don't go bringing facts into this...
> Wouldn't it be better to allow wire-tap evidence in court than to lock people up without trial and thereby undermine the whole basis of the justice system? Like, err, actually happens.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime
Don't go bringing facts into this...
3
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Yes, I quite agree. Changes to our not-so-perfect judicial system to allow this kind of intelligence to be used as evidence during a trial would certainly level the playing-field and negate the 'need' for Guantanamo.
That said, introducing anonymous witnesses, requiring judges to direct jury's who have not been allowed to see secret intelligence, hearings taking place out of public view and the introduction 'wire tap' evidence would fall foul of the corner stones of the Human Rights legislation, so beloved to many of the posters on this thread, namely Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).
Is this a breakthrough? Interesting to see what happens when people actually debate the point, rather than sling mud.
Yes, I quite agree. Changes to our not-so-perfect judicial system to allow this kind of intelligence to be used as evidence during a trial would certainly level the playing-field and negate the 'need' for Guantanamo.
That said, introducing anonymous witnesses, requiring judges to direct jury's who have not been allowed to see secret intelligence, hearings taking place out of public view and the introduction 'wire tap' evidence would fall foul of the corner stones of the Human Rights legislation, so beloved to many of the posters on this thread, namely Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).
Is this a breakthrough? Interesting to see what happens when people actually debate the point, rather than sling mud.
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
'Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).'
Harrumph! Ridiculous! Whatever next? They'll be giving wimmin the vote next!
'Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).'
Harrumph! Ridiculous! Whatever next? They'll be giving wimmin the vote next!
1
2
In reply to krikoman:
Strange post.
Are you comparing Mandella's and Ghandi's struggle's against apartheid and British rule to the West's struggle against ISIS?
Ghandi, notably, demanded a passive and peaceful revolution.
Strange post.
Are you comparing Mandella's and Ghandi's struggle's against apartheid and British rule to the West's struggle against ISIS?
Ghandi, notably, demanded a passive and peaceful revolution.
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Do you have a productive argument to make with regards to the last half dozen posts?
Do you have a productive argument to make with regards to the last half dozen posts?
2
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
OK - why do you think that is the case? Honestly - I think nearly everyone's argument here is that we think trials should be fair, but presumably it is a shared aim to make sure that is the case, and that the rules on admissible evidence are set at the right level to ensure that all appropriate evidence can be used, but that the rights of people who are accused (who may be innocent, we don't know yet) are also protected.
As for right to privacy family life - why would secret hearings intrude on this?
> That said, introducing anonymous witnesses, requiring judges to direct jury's who have not been allowed to see secret intelligence, hearings taking place out of public view and the introduction 'wire tap' evidence would fall foul of the corner stones of the Human Rights legislation, so beloved to many of the posters on this thread, namely Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).
OK - why do you think that is the case? Honestly - I think nearly everyone's argument here is that we think trials should be fair, but presumably it is a shared aim to make sure that is the case, and that the rules on admissible evidence are set at the right level to ensure that all appropriate evidence can be used, but that the rights of people who are accused (who may be innocent, we don't know yet) are also protected.
As for right to privacy family life - why would secret hearings intrude on this?
Post edited at 20:31
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
the word terrorist and expression terror-tactics has been used of British troops in Ireland (by a state broadcaster). It was a description used by the Nazis of partisans. It's a term that is in the eye of the beholder - hence the need for checks, balances and visible testable due process of law to avoid arbitrary justice- "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done"
the word terrorist and expression terror-tactics has been used of British troops in Ireland (by a state broadcaster). It was a description used by the Nazis of partisans. It's a term that is in the eye of the beholder - hence the need for checks, balances and visible testable due process of law to avoid arbitrary justice- "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done"
Post edited at 21:37
2
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
..because domestic and European legislation would need to be radically changed, in parts, before the kind of thing we're talking about could happen. And, in some peoples eyes, attacking the Human Rights Act, specifically the Right to a Fair Trial in a way that would benefit 'the state' would be seen as an attack on Human Right in general (just imagine the kind of fuss that organisations like Liberty and Cage would kick-up)!
And, the somewhat militant attitude displayed by the majority of the respondents on this post - who's stance appears to be that Human Rights, and therefore the Human Rights Act, should be defended at all costs and without compromise...without, I suspect, knowing much about the Act itself.
" Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).' Harrumph! Ridiculous! Whatever next? They'll be giving wimmin the vote next! "
See what I mean?!
You'll have to ask 'them', I suppose. They do seem to have gone rather quiet of late, mind. Can't think why.
Personally, I don't see how making the kind of adjustments we're talking about would bring about an unfair trial, after all, we're looking to submit evidence of events that actually took place.
The 'right to privacy and family life' is infringed by surveillance operations, particularly those that involve listening-in to phone calls.
..because domestic and European legislation would need to be radically changed, in parts, before the kind of thing we're talking about could happen. And, in some peoples eyes, attacking the Human Rights Act, specifically the Right to a Fair Trial in a way that would benefit 'the state' would be seen as an attack on Human Right in general (just imagine the kind of fuss that organisations like Liberty and Cage would kick-up)!
And, the somewhat militant attitude displayed by the majority of the respondents on this post - who's stance appears to be that Human Rights, and therefore the Human Rights Act, should be defended at all costs and without compromise...without, I suspect, knowing much about the Act itself.
" Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life).' Harrumph! Ridiculous! Whatever next? They'll be giving wimmin the vote next! "
See what I mean?!
You'll have to ask 'them', I suppose. They do seem to have gone rather quiet of late, mind. Can't think why.
Personally, I don't see how making the kind of adjustments we're talking about would bring about an unfair trial, after all, we're looking to submit evidence of events that actually took place.
The 'right to privacy and family life' is infringed by surveillance operations, particularly those that involve listening-in to phone calls.
Post edited at 21:51
2
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Can't say I blame you.
Given that your 'argument' (I suppose some of your hot air and waffle could just about be considered to be an argument) appears to have been soundly beaten, you're probably better off standing on the sidelines and harrumphing.
You remind me of Statler and Waldorf!
> Nope.
Can't say I blame you.
Given that your 'argument' (I suppose some of your hot air and waffle could just about be considered to be an argument) appears to have been soundly beaten, you're probably better off standing on the sidelines and harrumphing.
You remind me of Statler and Waldorf!
Post edited at 21:49
1
2
In reply to wercat:
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Even ISIS have their supporters, I suppose.
In whose eyes must justice "be seen to be done"? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Gerry Adams? Her Britannic Majesty?
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Even ISIS have their supporters, I suppose.
In whose eyes must justice "be seen to be done"? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Gerry Adams? Her Britannic Majesty?
Post edited at 22:00
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Why? What kind of changes? I can't see why radical changes are needed, unless what you propose is to suspend the right to fair trial (i.e. you don't care if it is fair in certain circumstances).
As for "without, I suspect, knowing much about the Act itself" - Can't speak for every poster on this thread, but I think human rights are worth defending at almost all costs, yes. I do know about the Act, I am a qualified solicitor in this country and have studied the Act at various points in my training (plus occasionally still advise on it).
I answered this upthread - the right to privacy would be infringed by surveillance, but (as with most, but not all human rights) the right is a qualified one - i.e. an infringement can be justified where it is proportionate.
You ignored the points I made (which explained that these rights aren't absolute) earlier and instead just made a flippant comment in reply about a victim of terrorism, and now you appear to be implying that these rights are absolute. Which is something of an irony given you keep complaining about how no-one is engaging with your arguments; you're ignoring the considered responses people are giving to your statements.
> ..because domestic and European legislation would need to be radically changed, in parts, before the kind of thing we're talking about could happen
Why? What kind of changes? I can't see why radical changes are needed, unless what you propose is to suspend the right to fair trial (i.e. you don't care if it is fair in certain circumstances).
As for "without, I suspect, knowing much about the Act itself" - Can't speak for every poster on this thread, but I think human rights are worth defending at almost all costs, yes. I do know about the Act, I am a qualified solicitor in this country and have studied the Act at various points in my training (plus occasionally still advise on it).
> The 'right to privacy and family life' is infringed by surveillance operations, particularly those that involve listening-in to phone calls.
I answered this upthread - the right to privacy would be infringed by surveillance, but (as with most, but not all human rights) the right is a qualified one - i.e. an infringement can be justified where it is proportionate.
You ignored the points I made (which explained that these rights aren't absolute) earlier and instead just made a flippant comment in reply about a victim of terrorism, and now you appear to be implying that these rights are absolute. Which is something of an irony given you keep complaining about how no-one is engaging with your arguments; you're ignoring the considered responses people are giving to your statements.
Post edited at 22:20
4
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Yes, I'm well aware that The Right To Privacy is a qualified right...and, as a solicitor, you'll be well aware of the song-and-dance that defence teams make out of breaches of qualified rights.
If their wide-spread use was to become feasible, the process of endless protests and appeals that defence teams employ to force the prosecution to water-down or abandon their evidence, reveal their tactics and technology, identify an informant etc would make their use impractical.
As a solicitor, you will know that intercepts require are not admissible in UK courts. This legislation would need to be changed, in the face of all the usual gasps of outrage.
Article 6 (HRA) states:
There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has.
The defendant, cross-examining a covert informant! Clearly, this would need to be re-written.
If changing these kind of laws was as easy as you seem to think, I suspect the Chilcott Review would have recommended that they be changed.
I may have missed out the odd post, including yours, there have been more than 200 responses to my original post and I'd need a secretary to keep up with all of them. I don't think I can be caused of failing to engage - which is more than can be said for some of the more shouty participants.
Not so ironic, perhaps.
Yes, I'm well aware that The Right To Privacy is a qualified right...and, as a solicitor, you'll be well aware of the song-and-dance that defence teams make out of breaches of qualified rights.
If their wide-spread use was to become feasible, the process of endless protests and appeals that defence teams employ to force the prosecution to water-down or abandon their evidence, reveal their tactics and technology, identify an informant etc would make their use impractical.
As a solicitor, you will know that intercepts require are not admissible in UK courts. This legislation would need to be changed, in the face of all the usual gasps of outrage.
Article 6 (HRA) states:
There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has.
The defendant, cross-examining a covert informant! Clearly, this would need to be re-written.
If changing these kind of laws was as easy as you seem to think, I suspect the Chilcott Review would have recommended that they be changed.
I may have missed out the odd post, including yours, there have been more than 200 responses to my original post and I'd need a secretary to keep up with all of them. I don't think I can be caused of failing to engage - which is more than can be said for some of the more shouty participants.
Not so ironic, perhaps.
Post edited at 22:49
3
1
In reply to wercat:
lets lock up some police without trial
> more people have been killed by police related incidents
lets lock up some police without trial
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
No I'm saying he was branded a terrorist by the South African government. Your saying all terrorists should be locked up, without trial. What's so hard to understand?
Ghandi, notably, demanded a passive and peaceful revolution.
He was branded a terrorist too!
http://www.oneindia.com/2013/05/22/gandhi-was-declared-terrorist-declaratio...
> Strange post.Are you comparing Mandella's and Ghandi's struggle's against apartheid and British rule to the West's struggle against ISIS?
No I'm saying he was branded a terrorist by the South African government. Your saying all terrorists should be locked up, without trial. What's so hard to understand?
Ghandi, notably, demanded a passive and peaceful revolution.
He was branded a terrorist too!
http://www.oneindia.com/2013/05/22/gandhi-was-declared-terrorist-declaratio...
Post edited at 15:13
1
In reply to krikoman:
Well, I'd never given it much thought. And now that I have, I can't really see the point in judging 'historical characters' using legislation that superseded them and, in the case of Mandella, was intended for use in a different country.
But since you ask:
As far as I can tell, Ghandi would not be considered a terrorist under the Terrorism Act 2000 because he did not advocate the use of violence.
I don't think that Mandella would fall foul of the Act either, because, although he did use violence, he was railing against an illegitimate 'Apartheid' Government.
Are you're suggesting that because some people who were once branded terrorists are now considered to be heroes, we should be careful of accusing ISIS of terrorism in case we are judged by the different standards of future generations?
You might be right, but I disagree.
In general, burning prisoners alive, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and beheading taxi-drivers is becoming less-and-less fashionable, and I can't see that trend being reversed any time soon (unless Trump gets in, of course).
So, where do you stand on: The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?
Well, I'd never given it much thought. And now that I have, I can't really see the point in judging 'historical characters' using legislation that superseded them and, in the case of Mandella, was intended for use in a different country.
But since you ask:
As far as I can tell, Ghandi would not be considered a terrorist under the Terrorism Act 2000 because he did not advocate the use of violence.
I don't think that Mandella would fall foul of the Act either, because, although he did use violence, he was railing against an illegitimate 'Apartheid' Government.
Are you're suggesting that because some people who were once branded terrorists are now considered to be heroes, we should be careful of accusing ISIS of terrorism in case we are judged by the different standards of future generations?
You might be right, but I disagree.
In general, burning prisoners alive, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and beheading taxi-drivers is becoming less-and-less fashionable, and I can't see that trend being reversed any time soon (unless Trump gets in, of course).
So, where do you stand on: The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?
Post edited at 16:59
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
They don't need to go away. They just needed to stop bombing. Do you agree that not enacting terrorism is a good thing?
> But the IRA haven't gone away...https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-i...
They don't need to go away. They just needed to stop bombing. Do you agree that not enacting terrorism is a good thing?
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
The thing is beheddings , lashing and a whole manner of barbaric acts are perpetrated by the Saudi regieme every week ... but they are a great customer for arms trade . They are a friendly bunch of barbaric Islamic psychos...
The thing is beheddings , lashing and a whole manner of barbaric acts are perpetrated by the Saudi regieme every week ... but they are a great customer for arms trade . They are a friendly bunch of barbaric Islamic psychos...
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Er... don't want to be the one to tell you this, but...
> (unless Trump gets in, of course)
Er... don't want to be the one to tell you this, but...
3
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
But Gitmo is a different country and so is Syria and Iraq.!!
On who's authority do you think the prisoners at Gitmo where advocating violence?
>I don't think that Mandella would fall foul of the Act either, because, although he did use violence, he was railing against an illegitimate 'Apartheid' Government.
where do you stand on the Palestinians defending their land?
>Are you're suggesting that because some people who were once branded terrorists are now considered to be heroes, we should be careful of accusing ISIS of terrorism in case we are judged by the different standards of future generations?
I'm suggesting you get some evidence that will stand up in court and them you give them a trial. Like most right-thinking people on this thread.
>You might be right, but I disagree.
In general, burning prisoners alive, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and beheading taxi-drivers is becoming less-and-less fashionable, and I can't see that trend being reversed any time soon (unless Trump gets in, of course).
So, where do you stand on: The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?
Good, Fictional and fictional (robber not terrorist).
> Well, I'd never given it much thought. And now that I have, I can't really see the point in judging 'historical characters' using legislation that superseded them and, in the case of Mandella, was intended for use in a different country.
But Gitmo is a different country and so is Syria and Iraq.!!
> But since you ask:As far as I can tell, Ghandi would not be considered a terrorist under the Terrorism Act 2000 because he did not advocate the use of violence.
On who's authority do you think the prisoners at Gitmo where advocating violence?
>I don't think that Mandella would fall foul of the Act either, because, although he did use violence, he was railing against an illegitimate 'Apartheid' Government.
where do you stand on the Palestinians defending their land?
>Are you're suggesting that because some people who were once branded terrorists are now considered to be heroes, we should be careful of accusing ISIS of terrorism in case we are judged by the different standards of future generations?
I'm suggesting you get some evidence that will stand up in court and them you give them a trial. Like most right-thinking people on this thread.
>You might be right, but I disagree.
In general, burning prisoners alive, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and beheading taxi-drivers is becoming less-and-less fashionable, and I can't see that trend being reversed any time soon (unless Trump gets in, of course).
So, where do you stand on: The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?
Good, Fictional and fictional (robber not terrorist).
Post edited at 18:15
1
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Why not extend your scheme? How about we lock up murderers without trial too. Get them off the streets wouldn't it? And shoplifters - do you have any idea how much getting evidence for their trials costs?
Why not extend your scheme? How about we lock up murderers without trial too. Get them off the streets wouldn't it? And shoplifters - do you have any idea how much getting evidence for their trials costs?
2
2
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Their capabilities have certainly been degraded since good friday.
That said, they launched roughly one bomb attack every week in Ireland during 2015 - 2016 and are striving, once agin, to attack the mainland.
They have also been implicated in the murders of numerous police officers, solders and prison officers.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that we adopt a similar negotiating process with ISIS as we did with the IRA? If so, I'm not convinced that such an approach would work, for the reasons given somewhere near the top of this thread.
I think we all agree with your final sentence, the disagreement relates to the means that we adopt achieve this.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/14/police-severe-terror-threat-ira-northern-ireland-bomb-attacks
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/attack-on-mainland-from-irish-republicans-strong-possibility-as/
Their capabilities have certainly been degraded since good friday.
That said, they launched roughly one bomb attack every week in Ireland during 2015 - 2016 and are striving, once agin, to attack the mainland.
They have also been implicated in the murders of numerous police officers, solders and prison officers.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that we adopt a similar negotiating process with ISIS as we did with the IRA? If so, I'm not convinced that such an approach would work, for the reasons given somewhere near the top of this thread.
I think we all agree with your final sentence, the disagreement relates to the means that we adopt achieve this.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/14/police-severe-terror-threat-ira-northern-ireland-bomb-attacks
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/attack-on-mainland-from-irish-republicans-strong-possibility-as/
1
In reply to MG:
Erm. I don't know. Can you give me the reasons for and against?
On a different thread, perhaps?
Erm. I don't know. Can you give me the reasons for and against?
On a different thread, perhaps?
1
4
2
In reply to krikoman:
*** But Gitmo is a different country and so is Syria and Iraq***
Seriously?! The whole point of Guantanamo is that is operates under its own protocols and is beyond the reach of American, Cuban and International law. The Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) is about as relevant there as it is to Mandella or Ghandi.
You'd need to refer to the legal definition of 'a terrorist' under Syrian and Iraqi law to ascertain the validity of your other 'points'.
***On who's authority do you think the prisoners at Gitmo where advocating violence?***
Don't know what this means. So, I'll go for Colonel Mustard.
***Where do you stand on the Palestinians defending their land?***
Don't know much about it, although I do understand that some (many?) on the left have been accused of anti-semitism on account of their stance with regards to this conflict.
Why not start another thread, if you'd like to discuss it?
***I'm suggesting you get some evidence that will stand up in court and them you give them a trial***
There was an interesting series of posts yesterday with regards to the validity of Intelligence and Circumstantial Evidence, with some suggestions with regards to how this sort of stuff could be used in court, evidentially.
I felt that this got to the crux of the debate...you haven't read it, have you?
After 220 odd posts, I'd rather not go over old ground. Again.
***The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?Good, Fictional and fictional (robber not terrorist)***
Jedi Master Yoda does exist. People who refuse to acknowledge this are un-believers who will be executed on YouTube by a masked man with a rusty light sabre.
*** But Gitmo is a different country and so is Syria and Iraq***
Seriously?! The whole point of Guantanamo is that is operates under its own protocols and is beyond the reach of American, Cuban and International law. The Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) is about as relevant there as it is to Mandella or Ghandi.
You'd need to refer to the legal definition of 'a terrorist' under Syrian and Iraqi law to ascertain the validity of your other 'points'.
***On who's authority do you think the prisoners at Gitmo where advocating violence?***
Don't know what this means. So, I'll go for Colonel Mustard.
***Where do you stand on the Palestinians defending their land?***
Don't know much about it, although I do understand that some (many?) on the left have been accused of anti-semitism on account of their stance with regards to this conflict.
Why not start another thread, if you'd like to discuss it?
***I'm suggesting you get some evidence that will stand up in court and them you give them a trial***
There was an interesting series of posts yesterday with regards to the validity of Intelligence and Circumstantial Evidence, with some suggestions with regards to how this sort of stuff could be used in court, evidentially.
I felt that this got to the crux of the debate...you haven't read it, have you?
After 220 odd posts, I'd rather not go over old ground. Again.
***The French Resistance, Yoda and Robin Hood. Terrorists or heroes?Good, Fictional and fictional (robber not terrorist)***
Jedi Master Yoda does exist. People who refuse to acknowledge this are un-believers who will be executed on YouTube by a masked man with a rusty light sabre.
Post edited at 20:20
1
In reply to MG:
I haven't made any suggestions with regards to how the judicial system deals with murderers and shoplifters, you have.
I've made numerous points about how it deals with terrorist, which you have ignored.
I haven't made any suggestions with regards to how the judicial system deals with murderers and shoplifters, you have.
I've made numerous points about how it deals with terrorist, which you have ignored.
Post edited at 20:24
1
1
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Look THE WALRUS, no one is saying that ISIS and Al-queda are doyens of the free world. All people are saying is that we can't abandon the principles that they hate so much for and that it might actually be counter-productive as well.
It seems a little more than coincidental that the two thread that you have protracted to hundreds of posts in the last couple of month and the only ones you have significantly contributed to, involve the nastier elements of the Muslim faith. Do you have an agenda? Do you think we should engage in a Holy War? Well, best of luck with that! A Holy War against 1.6bn people, a lot of whom think that to die in the cause of Allah fast-tracks them to eternal paradise.
I am no Islamic apologist, I have a massive distaste for all religion, especially Islam, with its cruel and morally disgusting practices. But, constantly banging on out how terrible the more wacky elements are and how we should impose our principles on them (especially by methods that would make us seem hypocritcal) is counterproductive, it will turn away the only people who could truly change things for the better and that is moderate Muslims.
Look THE WALRUS, no one is saying that ISIS and Al-queda are doyens of the free world. All people are saying is that we can't abandon the principles that they hate so much for and that it might actually be counter-productive as well.
It seems a little more than coincidental that the two thread that you have protracted to hundreds of posts in the last couple of month and the only ones you have significantly contributed to, involve the nastier elements of the Muslim faith. Do you have an agenda? Do you think we should engage in a Holy War? Well, best of luck with that! A Holy War against 1.6bn people, a lot of whom think that to die in the cause of Allah fast-tracks them to eternal paradise.
I am no Islamic apologist, I have a massive distaste for all religion, especially Islam, with its cruel and morally disgusting practices. But, constantly banging on out how terrible the more wacky elements are and how we should impose our principles on them (especially by methods that would make us seem hypocritcal) is counterproductive, it will turn away the only people who could truly change things for the better and that is moderate Muslims.
Post edited at 20:56
2
1
In reply to MG:
Have you hijacked your dads UKC profile? I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking with a grown-up.
Have you hijacked your dads UKC profile? I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking with a grown-up.
1
3
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
So, wikipedia reckons most historians think this was counter productive in the troubles. You must think at least one of the following is true -
the majority view of historians is wrong?
wikipedia is wrong?
it may have been counter productive in the troubles, but guantanamo is a different case?
All possibly reasonable answers - but you must think one is right. I'm interested in which one (rather than trying to prove you wrong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius#Long-term_effects
Historians generally view the period of internment as inflaming sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland, while failing in its goal of arresting key members of the IRA. Many of the people arrested had no links whatsoever with the IRA, but their names appeared on the list of those to be arrested through bungling and incompetence. The list's lack of reliability and the arrests that followed, complemented by reports of internees being abused far in excess of the usual state violence,[7] led to more nationalists identifying with the IRA and losing hope in non-violent methods. After Operation Demetrius, recruits came forward in huge numbers to join the Provisional and Official wings of the IRA.[19] Internment also led to a sharp increase in violence. In the eight months before the operation, there were 34 conflict-related deaths in Northern Ireland. In the four months following it, 140 were killed.[19] A serving officer of the British Royal Marines declared:
So, wikipedia reckons most historians think this was counter productive in the troubles. You must think at least one of the following is true -
the majority view of historians is wrong?
wikipedia is wrong?
it may have been counter productive in the troubles, but guantanamo is a different case?
All possibly reasonable answers - but you must think one is right. I'm interested in which one (rather than trying to prove you wrong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius#Long-term_effects
Historians generally view the period of internment as inflaming sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland, while failing in its goal of arresting key members of the IRA. Many of the people arrested had no links whatsoever with the IRA, but their names appeared on the list of those to be arrested through bungling and incompetence. The list's lack of reliability and the arrests that followed, complemented by reports of internees being abused far in excess of the usual state violence,[7] led to more nationalists identifying with the IRA and losing hope in non-violent methods. After Operation Demetrius, recruits came forward in huge numbers to join the Provisional and Official wings of the IRA.[19] Internment also led to a sharp increase in violence. In the eight months before the operation, there were 34 conflict-related deaths in Northern Ireland. In the four months following it, 140 were killed.[19] A serving officer of the British Royal Marines declared:
Post edited at 22:12
2
In reply to Hugh J:
I don't think that getting involved in ranty debates on UKC is much of an indicator of 'an agenda'. Given that the vast majority of my posts are concerned with high altitude mountaineering in South America and low grade rock in Snowdonia, the only conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from my posting habits is that I like climbing.
The suggestion that this thread is a thinly veiled attempt to persuade the masses to engage in holy war against Islam, rather than, say, a 'productive' way of passing the time during a particularly bad week of rail commuting, is a bit of a stretch!
Anyway, it's not exactly difficult to get involved in a rant-a-thon with the more reactionary and vocal elements of the UKC community (many of whom seem desperate to take offence at pretty much anything, and have an opinion on pretty much everything) - try this 350 post-long 'hate crime' for size, in response for posting I made about a piece of lost gear!
www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=575820&v=1#x7651202
See what I mean?
That said, I think I can draw a few interesting conclusions from the responses I have received:
As much as people seem to be pretty clear where they stand on the Guantanamo debate, only two people have shown themselves to be capable of engaging in persuasive debate. Everyone else seems to be content hurling puerile abuse, and posting irrelevant waffle.
For example: The point regarding the weight and admissibility of telephone intercepts is a real-world issue which has been debated by various Home Secretaries and high flying legal types for as long as the technology has existed, as have the issues surrounding informants, intelligence and the brinksmanship between terrorist and police which the current status-quo causes.
All valid posts, raised by another poster, who suggested that minor tweaks could be used to silence even the most ardent supporter of Guantanamo. Good points. Good debate.
Did any of the UKC luminaries interject? Agree? Disagree? Attempt to verbalise their opinions? Of course not, they just sat on the side-line and posted the same old crud. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either too high-minded or too stupid to back-up their opinions with argument.
Why is this interesting?
Well, in wake of the Brexit debacle, the Trump disaster and the rise of Right Wing lunatics across Europe, many commentators, much publicised, have complained that 'the left' have simply given-up on debate and resorted to mud-slinging, rather than actually trying to change people opinions through discussion; if you accuse everyone who supports Trump of being stupid, or everyone who's considering a 'leave' vote to be a racist, rather than debating them, don't be surprised if you lose the vote.
Seems to be exactly what's going on here.
Leftie comedian and commentator Jonathan Pie sums it up far better than I ever could:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jonathon-pie_uk_5825cb47e4b09ac74c523...
Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for people not to engage, I'll chalk it up as a 'win' against the odds...and a pretty poor display from the massed ranks of the anti-Guantanamo brigade.
I don't think that getting involved in ranty debates on UKC is much of an indicator of 'an agenda'. Given that the vast majority of my posts are concerned with high altitude mountaineering in South America and low grade rock in Snowdonia, the only conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from my posting habits is that I like climbing.
The suggestion that this thread is a thinly veiled attempt to persuade the masses to engage in holy war against Islam, rather than, say, a 'productive' way of passing the time during a particularly bad week of rail commuting, is a bit of a stretch!
Anyway, it's not exactly difficult to get involved in a rant-a-thon with the more reactionary and vocal elements of the UKC community (many of whom seem desperate to take offence at pretty much anything, and have an opinion on pretty much everything) - try this 350 post-long 'hate crime' for size, in response for posting I made about a piece of lost gear!
www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=575820&v=1#x7651202
See what I mean?
That said, I think I can draw a few interesting conclusions from the responses I have received:
As much as people seem to be pretty clear where they stand on the Guantanamo debate, only two people have shown themselves to be capable of engaging in persuasive debate. Everyone else seems to be content hurling puerile abuse, and posting irrelevant waffle.
For example: The point regarding the weight and admissibility of telephone intercepts is a real-world issue which has been debated by various Home Secretaries and high flying legal types for as long as the technology has existed, as have the issues surrounding informants, intelligence and the brinksmanship between terrorist and police which the current status-quo causes.
All valid posts, raised by another poster, who suggested that minor tweaks could be used to silence even the most ardent supporter of Guantanamo. Good points. Good debate.
Did any of the UKC luminaries interject? Agree? Disagree? Attempt to verbalise their opinions? Of course not, they just sat on the side-line and posted the same old crud. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either too high-minded or too stupid to back-up their opinions with argument.
Why is this interesting?
Well, in wake of the Brexit debacle, the Trump disaster and the rise of Right Wing lunatics across Europe, many commentators, much publicised, have complained that 'the left' have simply given-up on debate and resorted to mud-slinging, rather than actually trying to change people opinions through discussion; if you accuse everyone who supports Trump of being stupid, or everyone who's considering a 'leave' vote to be a racist, rather than debating them, don't be surprised if you lose the vote.
Seems to be exactly what's going on here.
Leftie comedian and commentator Jonathan Pie sums it up far better than I ever could:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jonathon-pie_uk_5825cb47e4b09ac74c523...
Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for people not to engage, I'll chalk it up as a 'win' against the odds...and a pretty poor display from the massed ranks of the anti-Guantanamo brigade.
Post edited at 23:41
1
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Where exactly did I post my support for the internment of suspected IRA prisoners? I've been pretty clear about the differences between the IRA and ISIS, and the differences in the methods employed to counter them.
Good to see you relying in Wikipedia for your research, by the way.
Where exactly did I post my support for the internment of suspected IRA prisoners? I've been pretty clear about the differences between the IRA and ISIS, and the differences in the methods employed to counter them.
Good to see you relying in Wikipedia for your research, by the way.
Post edited at 23:29
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I would say the amount of dislike you receive says more about you than the people of this parish.
Like this: "Have you hijacked your dads UKC profile? I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking with a grown-up."
I think that firstly, some have provided plenty back-up to their arguments and secondly some will see you as an obstinate bore that will never change his mind, so why bother?
The Trump vote was stupid. In my opinion so was the Brexit vote, but there has been plenty of debate, with evidence from Remainers on here. I would say that if the Remainers are now resoting to "mud-slinging" it's because Leavers have done nothing to justify why they voted Leave, but just said "Get over it, you lost, stop being a fascist, stop being undemocratic, you lost." and general sticking two fingers in their ears and going "La-la-la-la-la" in response to reasoned argument.
Why not try to find an echo chamber then?
P.S. I don't disagree with Mr Pie, but it's not the only reason that these nonsensical votes have happened.
> Anyway, it's not exactly difficult to get involved in a rant-a-thon with the more reactionary and vocal elements of the UKC community (many of whom seem desperate to take offence at pretty much anything, and have an opinion on pretty much everything) - try this 350 post-long 'hate crime' for size, in response for posting I made about a piece of lost gear!
I would say the amount of dislike you receive says more about you than the people of this parish.
> Everyone else seems to be content hurling puerile abuse, and posting irrelevant waffle.
Like this: "Have you hijacked your dads UKC profile? I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking with a grown-up."
> Did any of the UKC luminaries interject? Agree? Disagree? Attempt to verbalise their opinions? Of course not, they just sat on the side-line and posted the same old crud. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either too high-minded or too stupid to back-up their opinions with argument.Why is this interesting?
I think that firstly, some have provided plenty back-up to their arguments and secondly some will see you as an obstinate bore that will never change his mind, so why bother?
> Well, in wake of the Brexit debacle, the Trump disaster and the rise of Right Wing lunatics across Europe, many commentators, much publicised, have complained that 'the left' have simply given-up on debate and resorted to mud-slinging, rather than actually trying to change people opinions through discussion; if you accuse everyone who supports Trump of being stupid, or everyone who's considering a 'leave' vote to be a racist, rather than debating them, don't be surprised if you lose the vote.Seems to be exactly what's going on here.
The Trump vote was stupid. In my opinion so was the Brexit vote, but there has been plenty of debate, with evidence from Remainers on here. I would say that if the Remainers are now resoting to "mud-slinging" it's because Leavers have done nothing to justify why they voted Leave, but just said "Get over it, you lost, stop being a fascist, stop being undemocratic, you lost." and general sticking two fingers in their ears and going "La-la-la-la-la" in response to reasoned argument.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for people not to engage, I'll chalk it up as a 'win' against the odds...and a pretty poor display from the massed ranks of the anti-Guantanamo brigade.
Why not try to find an echo chamber then?
P.S. I don't disagree with Mr Pie, but it's not the only reason that these nonsensical votes have happened.
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
>Good to see you relying in Wikipedia for your research, by the way.
Sorry I forgot to thank your wiki link for uk islamist terrorism on Sunday.
From the uk figures in your wiki link it's fairly certain more people have already been murdered this week than Islamists have murdered here in the last decade.
Look on the bright side, no need to fixate on Islamist terrorists when there's so many more probable ways to be murdered.
>Good to see you relying in Wikipedia for your research, by the way.
Sorry I forgot to thank your wiki link for uk islamist terrorism on Sunday.
From the uk figures in your wiki link it's fairly certain more people have already been murdered this week than Islamists have murdered here in the last decade.
Look on the bright side, no need to fixate on Islamist terrorists when there's so many more probable ways to be murdered.
Post edited at 08:00
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
If you can write off terrorism because the chances of getting killed is so small, surley we can write off your concerns about Guantanamo because the chances of becoming an inmate there are even smaller.
If you can write off terrorism because the chances of getting killed is so small, surley we can write off your concerns about Guantanamo because the chances of becoming an inmate there are even smaller.
Post edited at 09:57
1
1
some will see you as an obstinate bore that will never change his mind, so why bother?
But i did change my mind.
Are you being ironic on purpose,
But i did change my mind.
Are you being ironic on purpose,
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Most of us just put the risk of terrorism in some kind of perspective then decide not to tear up what is a decent and functional legal system, the envy of many in some kind of counterproductive knee-jerk response.
As to why I've not engaged in a point by point debate with you: it's like debating mince, you don't listen and it's boring.
I'll say it again: if you believe your human rights are an unnecessary encumbrance that make you less safe then write to your MP or start a petition to parliament. If you put 10% of the effort you've put into this thread into doing something potentially effective you might one day persuade someone to begin eroding them for you. Perhaps before you do you might go stand on the sidings at Birkenau for a moment of reflection.
jk
> If you can write off terrorism because the chances of getting killed is so small, surley we can write off your concerns about Guantanamo because the chances of becoming an inmate there are even smaller.
Most of us just put the risk of terrorism in some kind of perspective then decide not to tear up what is a decent and functional legal system, the envy of many in some kind of counterproductive knee-jerk response.
As to why I've not engaged in a point by point debate with you: it's like debating mince, you don't listen and it's boring.
I'll say it again: if you believe your human rights are an unnecessary encumbrance that make you less safe then write to your MP or start a petition to parliament. If you put 10% of the effort you've put into this thread into doing something potentially effective you might one day persuade someone to begin eroding them for you. Perhaps before you do you might go stand on the sidings at Birkenau for a moment of reflection.
jk
Post edited at 10:10
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I'm glad you're aware that you're fixating on about 0.5% of the uk murders over the last 20 years or about 0.02% of uk murders in the last decade.
Again your link to terrorism on wiki was useful. Thanks again.
I'm glad you're aware that you're fixating on about 0.5% of the uk murders over the last 20 years or about 0.02% of uk murders in the last decade.
Again your link to terrorism on wiki was useful. Thanks again.
Post edited at 12:11
2
In reply to jkarran:
I'll say again, again; I conceded the point on the Human Rights Act about 36hrs ago, in the face of well argued debate. This led to discussion around Article 6 HRA and how it could be modified.
You didn't read that, did you? Which is presumably why you're still arguing about a point that has long since been conceeded.
Who's not listening, exactly?
I'll say again, again; I conceded the point on the Human Rights Act about 36hrs ago, in the face of well argued debate. This led to discussion around Article 6 HRA and how it could be modified.
You didn't read that, did you? Which is presumably why you're still arguing about a point that has long since been conceeded.
Who's not listening, exactly?
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Which point am I arguing that has long since been conceded? I've read the whole thread but I'll confess you've lost me there.
Do you now believe in the value of your human rights, that they make you safer and that seeking to erode them so as to be able to abuse others is dangerous?
jk
Which point am I arguing that has long since been conceded? I've read the whole thread but I'll confess you've lost me there.
Do you now believe in the value of your human rights, that they make you safer and that seeking to erode them so as to be able to abuse others is dangerous?
jk
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I didn't say you supported internment in Ireland. I asked which of three positions you held. As you seem to be against internment in Ireland I assume it's the third one: for the troubles it was bad, but for what we're dealing with now it's good.
Grateful if you could confirm I've understood correctly?
I didn't say you supported internment in Ireland. I asked which of three positions you held. As you seem to be against internment in Ireland I assume it's the third one: for the troubles it was bad, but for what we're dealing with now it's good.
Grateful if you could confirm I've understood correctly?
1
In reply to jkarran:
Discussion following Monday at 0848 (comments from various posters at 1252, 1347, 1453 and 1903).
"Yes, I quite agree. Changes to our not-so-perfect judicial system to allow this kind of intelligence to be used as evidence during a trial would certainly level the playing-field and negate the 'need' for Guantanamo".
The thrust of this aspect of the discussion has concerned the application of the Human Rights Act - not the need for Humam Rights per-se.
This has been lost in wide spread misreading, smoke screen and general harumping.
Do I believe in Human Rights? Yes, of course.
Do I believe thst they are correctly protected by the Human Rights Act? No, not always.
I have tried to demonstrate this in my posts of 0848 and 1453 on Monday.
Given that i have directly answered many of your questions, would you care to directly comment on these posts? Do you feel, in the circumstances given, that human rights are properly served by the human rights act?
Discussion following Monday at 0848 (comments from various posters at 1252, 1347, 1453 and 1903).
"Yes, I quite agree. Changes to our not-so-perfect judicial system to allow this kind of intelligence to be used as evidence during a trial would certainly level the playing-field and negate the 'need' for Guantanamo".
The thrust of this aspect of the discussion has concerned the application of the Human Rights Act - not the need for Humam Rights per-se.
This has been lost in wide spread misreading, smoke screen and general harumping.
Do I believe in Human Rights? Yes, of course.
Do I believe thst they are correctly protected by the Human Rights Act? No, not always.
I have tried to demonstrate this in my posts of 0848 and 1453 on Monday.
Given that i have directly answered many of your questions, would you care to directly comment on these posts? Do you feel, in the circumstances given, that human rights are properly served by the human rights act?
Post edited at 14:16
1
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
So you now want fewer and less onerous restrictions on admissible evidence? You consider this a reasonable alternative to creating or expanding illegal and counterproductive internment camps? Well we still disagree but small steps are still steps.
Well we can only judge you on what you say and you didn't appear to have much respect for the human rights of others at the outset of this thread.
Do I care? Sorry, no. Tell your MP, not me.
Yes. I've said so time and again. In Britain at the moment we get the security liberty balance broadly right, we should keep that under review but then we should also maintain a sense of perspective as to the risks actually posed today in Britain by 'terror'. IMO that risk is small, and well controlled.
jk
> Discussion following Monday at 0848 (comments from various posters at 1252, 1347, 1453 and 1903)."Yes, I quite agree. Changes to our not-so-perfect judicial system to allow this kind of intelligence to be used as evidence during a trial would certainly level the playing-field and negate the 'need' for Guantanamo".
So you now want fewer and less onerous restrictions on admissible evidence? You consider this a reasonable alternative to creating or expanding illegal and counterproductive internment camps? Well we still disagree but small steps are still steps.
> The thrust of this aspect of the discussion has concerned the application of the Human Rights Act - not the need for Humam Rights per-se.This has been lost in wide spread misreading, smoke screen and general harumping. Do I believe in Human Rights? Yes, of course.
Well we can only judge you on what you say and you didn't appear to have much respect for the human rights of others at the outset of this thread.
> Do I believe thst they are correctly protected by the Human Rights Act? No, not always.
Do I care? Sorry, no. Tell your MP, not me.
> Do you feel, in the circumstances given, that human rights and properly served by the human rights act?
Yes. I've said so time and again. In Britain at the moment we get the security liberty balance broadly right, we should keep that under review but then we should also maintain a sense of perspective as to the risks actually posed today in Britain by 'terror'. IMO that risk is small, and well controlled.
jk
Post edited at 14:32
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
If one were to consider that the only way that the terrorist threat to the UK could be measured was by deaths in the UK, and one were to repeatedly bring that into any discussion on terrorism - that might be considered to be a fixation.
> I'm glad you're aware that you're fixating on about 0.5% of the uk murders over the last 20 years or about 0.02% of uk murders in the last decade.Again your link to terrorism on wiki was useful. Thanks again.
If one were to consider that the only way that the terrorist threat to the UK could be measured was by deaths in the UK, and one were to repeatedly bring that into any discussion on terrorism - that might be considered to be a fixation.
1
In reply to off-duty:
It's the best information available to me. Have you got any better publicly available information?
I don't place much faith in assertions not backed up by data when the assertions contradict the observation that the level of terrorism here is about the lowest it's been in my lifetime.
It's the best information available to me. Have you got any better publicly available information?
I don't place much faith in assertions not backed up by data when the assertions contradict the observation that the level of terrorism here is about the lowest it's been in my lifetime.
In reply to elsewhere:
It's the best information available to me. Have you got any better publicly available information?
I don't place much faith in assertions not backed up by data when the assertions contradict the observation that the level of terrorism here is about the lowest it's been in my lifetime.
It's not the "best information". It is a list of UK fatalities. Apart from anything else using a statistic like that to suggest we are safe from terrorism is like saying we shouldn't bother vaccinating because no-one dies of measles any more.
It's the best information available to me. Have you got any better publicly available information?
I don't place much faith in assertions not backed up by data when the assertions contradict the observation that the level of terrorism here is about the lowest it's been in my lifetime.
It's not the "best information". It is a list of UK fatalities. Apart from anything else using a statistic like that to suggest we are safe from terrorism is like saying we shouldn't bother vaccinating because no-one dies of measles any more.
1
In reply to off-duty:
I note you don't offer any better information.
Is my observation that the level of terrorism is the about the lowest it's been in my lifetime wrong?
I don't question vaccination as it's scientific theory (viral infections, immune system) backed up the proof (data) from medical studies. There's nothing comparable for terrorism & counter terrorism.
Relative freedom from terrorism in a time of high threat requires me to accept that terrorists never get lucky and counter terrorism never goes wrong. That's possible, but it doesn't sound like the real world and it's not what happened in the past.
A lack of terrorist capability and capable policing seems more plausible than high terrorist capability and near infallible policing.
> It's not the "best information". It is a list of UK fatalities. Apart from anything else using a statistic like that to suggest we are safe from terrorism is like saying we shouldn't bother vaccinating because no-one dies of measles any more.
I note you don't offer any better information.
Is my observation that the level of terrorism is the about the lowest it's been in my lifetime wrong?
I don't question vaccination as it's scientific theory (viral infections, immune system) backed up the proof (data) from medical studies. There's nothing comparable for terrorism & counter terrorism.
Relative freedom from terrorism in a time of high threat requires me to accept that terrorists never get lucky and counter terrorism never goes wrong. That's possible, but it doesn't sound like the real world and it's not what happened in the past.
A lack of terrorist capability and capable policing seems more plausible than high terrorist capability and near infallible policing.
Post edited at 23:35
In reply to off-duty:
It is quite reasonable to say that under the current management regime (vaccination and monitoring) we are safe from measles. That isn't to say the measles virus cannot cause harm but that we appropriately manage the risk at present and we probably do not need to do any more unless something changes but we should keep the situation under active review.
Exactly the same can be said of risk to life from terror on UK soil and the statistics appear to bear that out. That isn't to deny there are dangerous people and ideas out there.
jk
> It's the best information available to me. Have you got any better publicly available information? I don't place much faith in assertions not backed up by data when the assertions contradict the observation that the level of terrorism here is about the lowest it's been in my lifetime.It's not the "best information". It is a list of UK fatalities. Apart from anything else using a statistic like that to suggest we are safe from terrorism is like saying we shouldn't bother vaccinating because no-one dies of measles any more.
It is quite reasonable to say that under the current management regime (vaccination and monitoring) we are safe from measles. That isn't to say the measles virus cannot cause harm but that we appropriately manage the risk at present and we probably do not need to do any more unless something changes but we should keep the situation under active review.
Exactly the same can be said of risk to life from terror on UK soil and the statistics appear to bear that out. That isn't to deny there are dangerous people and ideas out there.
jk
Post edited at 09:22
2
2
In reply to elsewhere:
On the basis of the figure you fixate on (number of deaths) all you can say is "the number of deaths in the UK from terrorism is the lowest...."
Another figure?
I remember when the police special branch was less than 30 people, based locally.
It's now a gargantuan regionally based counter terrorism unit, with a strength somewhere between 500 and a thousand.
If I were to use that as an indicator of terrorist threat I would say it was at least ten times higher.
But I am aware that trying to make such sweeping assertions on the basis of one measurement of a complex problem would be flawed.
> I note you don't offer any better information.Is my observation that the level of terrorism is the about the lowest it's been in my lifetime wrong?
On the basis of the figure you fixate on (number of deaths) all you can say is "the number of deaths in the UK from terrorism is the lowest...."
Another figure?
I remember when the police special branch was less than 30 people, based locally.
It's now a gargantuan regionally based counter terrorism unit, with a strength somewhere between 500 and a thousand.
If I were to use that as an indicator of terrorist threat I would say it was at least ten times higher.
But I am aware that trying to make such sweeping assertions on the basis of one measurement of a complex problem would be flawed.
4
In reply to jkarran:
And given the size of the counter terrorism assets deployed to tackle it, and the money poured in to combatting it - then I would tend to agree with your conclusion - we are successfully managing the threat, which clearly and logically as per your rationale is greater in risk than it has been previously.
And given the size of the counter terrorism assets deployed to tackle it, and the money poured in to combatting it - then I would tend to agree with your conclusion - we are successfully managing the threat, which clearly and logically as per your rationale is greater in risk than it has been previously.
3
In reply to off-duty:
I don't think there is a hidden wave of terrorism unreported in the press.
If you include non-fatalities then IS inspired terrorism becomes even smaller in comparison to The Troubles where there were many more punishment beatings, bombings, arson attacks and shootings etc than fatalities.
Why does counter terrorism suppress Islamists more than it did/does Republicans and Loyalists?
Either NI counter terrorism was much poorer and remains poorer now or the terrorist threat was hugely greater and remains greater in NI.
I think the latter is likely to be truer than the former.
> On the basis of the figure you fixate on (number of deaths) all you can say is "the number of deaths in the UK from terrorism is the lowest...."
I don't think there is a hidden wave of terrorism unreported in the press.
If you include non-fatalities then IS inspired terrorism becomes even smaller in comparison to The Troubles where there were many more punishment beatings, bombings, arson attacks and shootings etc than fatalities.
Why does counter terrorism suppress Islamists more than it did/does Republicans and Loyalists?
Either NI counter terrorism was much poorer and remains poorer now or the terrorist threat was hugely greater and remains greater in NI.
I think the latter is likely to be truer than the former.
1
In reply to off-duty:
And how much of that do you reckon is picking up from where the military left off after the war in NI ended and the threat changed?
That mischaracterises what I'm saying slightly. While the threat is appropriately managed, as it is now the risk is small. You contend the scale of threat has grown enormously (x10 to x20 by your estimate based on Special Branch numbers) in the last couple of decades since the NI war ended. I'm skeptical but I admit that skepticism is not based on robust evidence. Perhaps you're right.
jk
> On the basis of the figure you fixate on (number of deaths) all you can say is "the number of deaths in the UK from terrorism is the lowest...." Another figure?I remember when the police special branch was less than 30 people, based locally.It's now a gargantuan regionally based counter terrorism unit, with a strength somewhere between 500 and a thousand.
And how much of that do you reckon is picking up from where the military left off after the war in NI ended and the threat changed?
> And given the size of the counter terrorism assets deployed to tackle it, and the money poured in to combatting it - then I would tend to agree with your conclusion - we are successfully managing the threat, which clearly and logically as per your rationale is greater in risk than it has been previously.
That mischaracterises what I'm saying slightly. While the threat is appropriately managed, as it is now the risk is small. You contend the scale of threat has grown enormously (x10 to x20 by your estimate based on Special Branch numbers) in the last couple of decades since the NI war ended. I'm skeptical but I admit that skepticism is not based on robust evidence. Perhaps you're right.
jk
1
In reply to elsewhere:
The current Islamist terrorist threat is international, multi-faceted and reliant on communications and technology that simply didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. It operates on a different model of recruitment, and commits its attacks in a very different method from the IRA.
To measure it purely on UK deaths is a gross oversimplification. You can see that simplification slipping when you suggest that punishment beatings, shootings, arson attacks be included - without expanding your comparison to include ISIS atrocities, because those atrocities might not happen to involve UK/Irish citizens. Similarly all military deaths and casualties appear to be excluded.
There is undeniably a difference between home grown and international terrorism, but the single measure you consider significant is a very isolationist one, abrogating any responsibility for the UK to act in partnership with the international community - because "it isn't out problem".
In a similar fashion your metric ignores the involvement of UK foreign policy in tackling international terrorism - because foreign deaths, even by home grown terrorists, don't count.
Finally you appear confident in saying that because your statistic is the true measure of threat this must mean that the NI threat is greater than Islamic - basically ignoring my figure on the logarithmic rise in CT resources in the UK to combat terrorism. A reasonable conclusion might be that the number of deaths is smaller because the resources deployed against the threat are larger. Of course that position is arguable - however you have chosen not to discuss my statistic (as I have discussed yours) but simply to ignore it.
Which brings me back to my original point of a fixation on UK deaths as the only measure of terrorist threat.
The current Islamist terrorist threat is international, multi-faceted and reliant on communications and technology that simply didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. It operates on a different model of recruitment, and commits its attacks in a very different method from the IRA.
To measure it purely on UK deaths is a gross oversimplification. You can see that simplification slipping when you suggest that punishment beatings, shootings, arson attacks be included - without expanding your comparison to include ISIS atrocities, because those atrocities might not happen to involve UK/Irish citizens. Similarly all military deaths and casualties appear to be excluded.
There is undeniably a difference between home grown and international terrorism, but the single measure you consider significant is a very isolationist one, abrogating any responsibility for the UK to act in partnership with the international community - because "it isn't out problem".
In a similar fashion your metric ignores the involvement of UK foreign policy in tackling international terrorism - because foreign deaths, even by home grown terrorists, don't count.
Finally you appear confident in saying that because your statistic is the true measure of threat this must mean that the NI threat is greater than Islamic - basically ignoring my figure on the logarithmic rise in CT resources in the UK to combat terrorism. A reasonable conclusion might be that the number of deaths is smaller because the resources deployed against the threat are larger. Of course that position is arguable - however you have chosen not to discuss my statistic (as I have discussed yours) but simply to ignore it.
Which brings me back to my original point of a fixation on UK deaths as the only measure of terrorist threat.
2
In reply to off-duty:
Thankfully they don't develop the IRA's murderous skills because most attacks in UK/EU are their first and last.
That means that their attacks usually result in fatalities because there's no thought of surviving to mount a sustained campaign.
>To measure it purely on UK deaths is a gross oversimplification. You can see that simplification slipping when you suggest that punishment beatings, shootings, arson attacks be included - without expanding your comparison to include ISIS atrocities, because those atrocities might not happen to involve UK/Irish citizens. Similarly all military deaths and casualties appear to be excluded.
Overseas casualties count, but as I've said before, we are not the world's policeman. We can cooperate internationally but without boots on the ground the UK is a marginal influence compared to that nation's counter terrorism and government. Just like CIA, BND etc are a marginal influence on counter terrorism here compared the UK counter terrorism.
I don't say overseas casualties 'aren't our problem'. I do say they are not a problem we can fix. We can help but the governments of Iraq & Nigeria have far more impact on IS & Boko Haram than we do. Even if we put boots on the ground we generally can't fix countries.
The IRA were sometimes described as the most professional. They were even able to sell their skills internationally, it's so sad they got arrested in Columbia for that. In Iraq the insurgency against US/UK developed that professionalism and effectiveness. In the UK (&EU?) they don't develop those skills because an individual's first attack is their last.
The lack of skill, organisation, guns & explosive makes them far less of a threat than the IRA were.
It also probably makes counter terrorism against them far more effective so I tend to agree with you there.
I also think that terrorist competence rather than counter terrorist incompetence is why the official terror alert level is higher in NI and why 2017 in there's been two shooting & a bombing that I know of.
However a sustained lack of attacks in the rest of the UK suggests a lack of terrorist capability and competence here.
Quite simply simply a sustained lack of attacks due to counter terrorism would require year; after year; after year of good luck and nothing going wrong. That just seems implausible.
A sustained lack of attacks due to counter terrorism in an era of high threat seem to me to be historically unprecedented. Counter terrorism never manged that in NI.
I do not doubt that IS would like to do here in the UK as much as anywhere what they attempted at the Stade de France at some live televised mass event with live twitter and streaming first person shooter.
I do doubt that IS have much capability (eg weapons & competence) here in the UK compared to IRA etc.
I think IS will attack in the UK. To believe otherwise would require me to believe in perpetual good luck and counter terrorist infallibility.
Maybe I'm complacent, but I think it won't be multiple attacks per year/month/week that I remember.
I do doubt that counter terrorism can have sustained infallibility for several years at a time.
Apologies to anybody offended by my very coldhearted language particularly about what IS would like to do.
PS I do not discount military causalities and I'm aware of unbelievably heroic people such as Olaf Schmid.
> The current Islamist terrorist threat is international, multi-faceted and reliant on communications and technology that simply didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. It operates on a different model of recruitment, and commits its attacks in a very different method from the IRA.
Thankfully they don't develop the IRA's murderous skills because most attacks in UK/EU are their first and last.
That means that their attacks usually result in fatalities because there's no thought of surviving to mount a sustained campaign.
>To measure it purely on UK deaths is a gross oversimplification. You can see that simplification slipping when you suggest that punishment beatings, shootings, arson attacks be included - without expanding your comparison to include ISIS atrocities, because those atrocities might not happen to involve UK/Irish citizens. Similarly all military deaths and casualties appear to be excluded.
Overseas casualties count, but as I've said before, we are not the world's policeman. We can cooperate internationally but without boots on the ground the UK is a marginal influence compared to that nation's counter terrorism and government. Just like CIA, BND etc are a marginal influence on counter terrorism here compared the UK counter terrorism.
I don't say overseas casualties 'aren't our problem'. I do say they are not a problem we can fix. We can help but the governments of Iraq & Nigeria have far more impact on IS & Boko Haram than we do. Even if we put boots on the ground we generally can't fix countries.
> A reasonable conclusion might be that the number of deaths is smaller because the resources deployed against the threat are larger. Of course that position is arguable - however you have chosen not to discuss my statistic (as I have discussed yours) but simply to ignore it.
The IRA were sometimes described as the most professional. They were even able to sell their skills internationally, it's so sad they got arrested in Columbia for that. In Iraq the insurgency against US/UK developed that professionalism and effectiveness. In the UK (&EU?) they don't develop those skills because an individual's first attack is their last.
The lack of skill, organisation, guns & explosive makes them far less of a threat than the IRA were.
It also probably makes counter terrorism against them far more effective so I tend to agree with you there.
I also think that terrorist competence rather than counter terrorist incompetence is why the official terror alert level is higher in NI and why 2017 in there's been two shooting & a bombing that I know of.
However a sustained lack of attacks in the rest of the UK suggests a lack of terrorist capability and competence here.
Quite simply simply a sustained lack of attacks due to counter terrorism would require year; after year; after year of good luck and nothing going wrong. That just seems implausible.
A sustained lack of attacks due to counter terrorism in an era of high threat seem to me to be historically unprecedented. Counter terrorism never manged that in NI.
I do not doubt that IS would like to do here in the UK as much as anywhere what they attempted at the Stade de France at some live televised mass event with live twitter and streaming first person shooter.
I do doubt that IS have much capability (eg weapons & competence) here in the UK compared to IRA etc.
I think IS will attack in the UK. To believe otherwise would require me to believe in perpetual good luck and counter terrorist infallibility.
Maybe I'm complacent, but I think it won't be multiple attacks per year/month/week that I remember.
I do doubt that counter terrorism can have sustained infallibility for several years at a time.
Apologies to anybody offended by my very coldhearted language particularly about what IS would like to do.
PS I do not discount military causalities and I'm aware of unbelievably heroic people such as Olaf Schmid.
Post edited at 13:25
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Aside from the many other points worth addressing in your post - it's probably worth pointing out that the threat to the whole of the UK from international terrorism is SEVERE.
The threat to mainland UK from NI related terrorism is SUBSTANTIAL. This is a lower threat level to that from international terrorism.
The threat in NI from NI related terrorism is SEVERE. This is the same threat level as international terrorism.
> I also think that terrorist competence rather than counter terrorist incompetence is why the official terror alert level is higher in NI and why 2017 in there's been two shooting & a bombing that I know of.
Aside from the many other points worth addressing in your post - it's probably worth pointing out that the threat to the whole of the UK from international terrorism is SEVERE.
The threat to mainland UK from NI related terrorism is SUBSTANTIAL. This is a lower threat level to that from international terrorism.
The threat in NI from NI related terrorism is SEVERE. This is the same threat level as international terrorism.
1
2
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Nar not such a bad thing
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2017/03/a_graphic_novel_adaptation...
Nar not such a bad thing
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2017/03/a_graphic_novel_adaptation...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...