|
On June 05 2017 22:35 SoSexy wrote:
Oh I see Kwark. Your plan worked really nice until now. If you honestly can't see the problem with people praying to the flag of a terrorist organization and you are more concerned about their 'right' to hail murderers, it's useless to talk.
I'd be up for jailing ISIS hate preachers if they also jailed every other hate preaching racist piece of shit out there too. But the UK doesn't seem close to doing that. Hell, the white racist cunts have their own political party, so not sure you can jail one thought crime and not another.
|
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing.
|
|
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing.
What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime.
I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag.
Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along.
|
On June 05 2017 22:42 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:35 SoSexy wrote:
Oh I see Kwark. Your plan worked really nice until now. If you honestly can't see the problem with people praying to the flag of a terrorist organization and you are more concerned about their 'right' to hail murderers, it's useless to talk. I'd be up for jailing ISIS hate preachers if they also jailed every other hate preaching racist piece of shit out there too. But the UK doesn't seem close to doing that. Hell, the white racist cunts have their own political party, so not sure you can jail one thought crime and not another.
Are you seriously comparing UKIP to Isis? My god, UKIP are a bunch of trash but have some sense of decency.
Also who are these other hate preachers that you talked about that can be compared to Isis hate preachers, just curious.
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 22:49 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:42 MoonfireSpam wrote:On June 05 2017 22:35 SoSexy wrote:
Oh I see Kwark. Your plan worked really nice until now. If you honestly can't see the problem with people praying to the flag of a terrorist organization and you are more concerned about their 'right' to hail murderers, it's useless to talk. I'd be up for jailing ISIS hate preachers if they also jailed every other hate preaching racist piece of shit out there too. But the UK doesn't seem close to doing that. Hell, the white racist cunts have their own political party, so not sure you can jail one thought crime and not another. Are you seriously comparing UKIP to Isis? My god, UKIP are a bunch of trash but have some sense of decency. Also who are these other hate preachers that you talked about that can be compared to Isis hate preachers, just curious.
I'm assuming he meant BNP but yeah, ISIS are on another level. There are about a dozen levels of shittiness, each higher than the one before, between the BNP and ISIS. ISIS are basically peak shitty.
|
On June 05 2017 22:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:49 Reaps wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 MoonfireSpam wrote:On June 05 2017 22:35 SoSexy wrote:
Oh I see Kwark. Your plan worked really nice until now. If you honestly can't see the problem with people praying to the flag of a terrorist organization and you are more concerned about their 'right' to hail murderers, it's useless to talk. I'd be up for jailing ISIS hate preachers if they also jailed every other hate preaching racist piece of shit out there too. But the UK doesn't seem close to doing that. Hell, the white racist cunts have their own political party, so not sure you can jail one thought crime and not another. Are you seriously comparing UKIP to Isis? My god, UKIP are a bunch of trash but have some sense of decency. Also who are these other hate preachers that you talked about that can be compared to Isis hate preachers, just curious. I'm assuming he meant BNP but yeah, ISIS are on another level. There are about a dozen levels of shittiness, each higher than the one before, between the BNP and ISIS. ISIS are basically peak shitty.
Ye pretty much, i'm surprised BNP still exist, thought they vanished long time ago.
|
On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along.
Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place.
|
Was not that obviously talking about the shittier parts of the BNP, but also the various white supremacy groups that roam around occasionally stirring crap up at football matches and other events.
The main point being that if SoSexy is saying "we should jail people for various thought crimes or potential future crimes" then these guys I would say are also in the same kinda area and arguably more dangerous that ISIS since the average person has a harder time recognising the fuckwittery they spout.
FYI I'm against that kind of policy because I think people would be too stupid to make that work and it would result in far more harm than good.
Also odds are with if you arrested that guy 2 years ago, I doubt there'd be any solid evidence to charge him with, and you could be damn sure that along with giving him more motive to fuck things up (and a heads up to be careful about it) all his mates on the fence would also turn.
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 22:55 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along. Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place.
I'm arguing that until there is a conviction secured in a fair and open court for a crime then a person praying to an ISIS court is an innocent person.
Every person is innocent until a court declares otherwise. We cannot simply declare that some people aren't innocent and lock them up.
Praying to an ISIS flag is fucked up and should absolutely be a red flag that should cause investigation. And if they're investigating the guy and see a rental van receipt pops up in his email then they should break that door down. But if you want him in prison then first he has to be found guilty of a crime. And if he is found guilty of a crime then first he has to be tried in a fair and open court. And if he is tried in a fair and open court then first you need to work out what you're accusing him of and what evidence you have.
Praying to an ISIS flag isn't enough to get what you want. It's just not. You keep saying you want him in jail but you're not telling me how you get him in jail, what his crime is, what the evidence is, how you prove it in court, how long you keep them there etc. It'd be much better if the guys who committed this latest atrocity had been in jail but you're not telling me how you make that happen.
|
Canada13395 Posts
On June 05 2017 22:55 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along. Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place.
Pre-emptive jailing of anyone for a crime not yet committed and only being investigated steps on so many civil liberties its not even funny.
Even the Magna Carta recognized that people have a basic right to freedom in the abscence of proof of wrongdoing. That was written in the 13th century.
And then habeus corpus further enshrined the notion in the 17th century by making it explicit.
Both of these came into existence in England by the way, so to advocate for the opposite in that country is kind of ironic.
On June 05 2017 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:55 SoSexy wrote:On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along. Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place. I'm arguing that until there is a conviction secured in a fair and open court for a crime then a person praying to an ISIS court is an innocent person. Every person is innocent until a court declares otherwise. We cannot simply declare that some people aren't innocent and lock them up. Praying to an ISIS flag is fucked up and should absolutely be a red flag that should cause investigation. And if they're investigating the guy and see a rental van receipt pops up in his email then they should break that door down. But if you want him in prison then first he has to be found guilty of a crime. And if he is found guilty of a crime then first he has to be tried in a fair and open court. And if he is tried in a fair and open court then first you need to work out what you're accusing him of and what evidence you have. Praying to an ISIS flag isn't enough to get what you want. It's just not. You keep saying you want him in jail but you're not telling me how you get him in jail, what his crime is, what the evidence is, how you prove it in court, how long you keep them there etc. It'd be much better if the guys who committed this latest atrocity had been in jail but you're not telling me how you make that happen.
Honestly Kwark, after the latest events in the UK I can only come to the conclusion that there are some serious procedural or structural issues in the intelligence systems of the country.
Maybe they don't share information properly, maybe they're underfunded, maybe they're understaffed. In the end red flags and warning signs seem to be ignored or acted on so slowly that they can't stop these attacks.
I can begin to understand how a non-sophisticated attack like stabbing/driving up onto a curb can be harder to stop. But for the bombing event which takes a lot more material and time I can't. And the most recent London attacks were also coordinated and involved multiple people - something else that should be preventable based on the fact that they need to coordinate and communicate for it.
|
So what's enough for them to throw him in jail? Publicly praying to a symbol that stands for destruction of everything you, and your country, stands for, isn't enough? I think it can be argued that this can be classified as a hate crime already.
If people on the internet saying things can be jailed/fined, why can't a man that does this gross gesture?
|
The problem with just jailing these kind of people is that they will just become even more radical and radicalize other people while inside, then they come out of jail and are more dangerous than ever.
In the UK we have laws against supporting Isis, anyone caught supporting them are actually breaking the law, the problem is as i said, you jail them and then what? They'll probably become an even bigger threat, and its not possible to keep watch on all of them, we have over 3000 jihadists in the country with tens of thousands more supporting these kind of attacks.
We are in a really shitty situation and i have no idea what can be done
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 23:07 Uldridge wrote:
So what's enough for them to throw him in jail? Publicly praying to a symbol that stands for destruction of everything you, and your country, stands for, isn't enough? I think it can be argued that this can be classified as a hate crime already.
If people on the internet saying things can be jailed/fined, why can't a man that does this gross gesture?
A hate crime is an American concept and as far as I understand it it's a regular crime done out of hate against a protected class. So if you punch a black guy that's assault. If you punch a black guy because you hate black guys then that's a hate crime as well as assault.
I'm not sure praying can really be a hate crime. Also I'm pretty sure we don't have that in the UK anyway.
People saying things on the internet can be criminal depending upon what is said. Also we have some laws against inciting racial/religious/sexual orientation etc violence. So calling upon people to lynch the gays isn't legal because we don't want someone saying "well I didn't set fire the the gay nightclub, I just got a mob together and said it'd be good if someone did" and getting away with that shit. But it's really hard to make praying some kind of crime.
|
On June 05 2017 23:07 Uldridge wrote:
So what's enough for them to throw him in jail? Publicly praying to a symbol that stands for destruction of everything you, and your country, stands for, isn't enough? I think it can be argued that this can be classified as a hate crime already.
If people on the internet saying things can be jailed/fined, why can't a man that does this gross gesture?
He gets jailed for 1 year for praying to an ISIS flag. What do you think he'll do in 1.1 years?
Do you think jailing this dude for showing ISIS support would have achieved anything really? Jail is a shit solution for this kind of stuff.
For the ones what aren't UK citizens deportation is an option.
For the ones that are your only solution is to watch them like hawks and kill em before before they do harm (which is really really expensive).
|
Canada13395 Posts
On June 05 2017 23:07 Uldridge wrote:
So what's enough for them to throw him in jail? Publicly praying to a symbol that stands for destruction of everything you, and your country, stands for, isn't enough? I think it can be argued that this can be classified as a hate crime already.
If people on the internet saying things can be jailed/fined, why can't a man that does this gross gesture?
Because sadly, the freedom of expression is not something you can jail someone for. You can't jail someone for simply wanting Irish independence, and you can't jail someone for carrying a white supremacy flag.
If they aren't outright inciting violence themselves, with legal standing or proof to make that claim, you can't actually arrest them.
Its not worth throwing away all your freedom for security - because once you throw all your freedom away, you have nothing left, and your security is predicated on following all the rules even ones that work against you.
A fair line needs to be drawn and the fact of the matter is, the only way to prevent everything is to make it so people can effectively do nothing.
|
Look, I can understand this. But I'm sure you can have strong correlation with people (actively) wanting to bring your society down with actions like praying to a flag that's a symbol to take your society down.
Why are they in your society when they want to bring it down? You could just deport them, right? It's not about jailing per se, it's about taking steps to make sure the general safety is harbored.
Make them fight your country from outside your country, instead of within. At least that's more manageable I think.
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 23:05 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 22:55 SoSexy wrote:On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along. Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place. Pre-emptive jailing of anyone for a crime not yet committed and only being investigated steps on so many civil liberties its not even funny. Even the Magna Carta recognized that people have a basic right to freedom in the abscence of proof of wrongdoing. That was written in the 13th century. And then habeus corpus further enshrined the notion in the 17th century by making it explicit. Both of these came into existence in England by the way, so to advocate for the opposite in that country is kind of ironic. Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 23:02 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:55 SoSexy wrote:On June 05 2017 22:45 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2017 22:42 SoSexy wrote:
Just to remember everyone that one of the killers was:
- praying to a ISIS flag in a public park in London
- one of his friends called antiterrorism, reporting him as a potential threat
- various reports from neighbours, saying that two years ago he was trying to radicalize children in a local park
If you do not think that this would have at least called for a throughout investigation, I don't know what to say. Believing that you can stop terrorists just few seconds before committing the attack to be 100% sure it is them is bound to failure. In fact, it is already failing. What are you talking about? I said that this was cause for a thorough investigation. I said they should have taken the evidence that they had to a judge and gotten evidence to monitor all of his electronic communications and online activities to try and get evidence to convict him of a crime. I'm arguing that it was evidence to investigate him. What you were arguing is that the police should have arrested him after he prayed to an ISIS flag. Don't try to switch sides in this argument and argue my point. I'll stick my side, "if they show terrorist sympathies then investigate them and get evidence of intent to commit a crime then arrest them". You stick to whatever the fuck you're arguing. Your latest post agrees with everything I've been saying and pretends that you were saying it all along. Relax. I'm not switching sides. We are arguing the same thing, but with different procedures. You are arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation. I am arguing that the collected data should have prompted an investigation, but with the guy in jail. Some sort of pre-emptive jailing for potential terrorist threat while detectives investigate the matter. And don't try to say 'this will hit innocent people so hard'. No innocent person is praying to an ISIS flag in western society. These people do not end on watchlists casually. The system is in place. I'm arguing that until there is a conviction secured in a fair and open court for a crime then a person praying to an ISIS court is an innocent person. Every person is innocent until a court declares otherwise. We cannot simply declare that some people aren't innocent and lock them up. Praying to an ISIS flag is fucked up and should absolutely be a red flag that should cause investigation. And if they're investigating the guy and see a rental van receipt pops up in his email then they should break that door down. But if you want him in prison then first he has to be found guilty of a crime. And if he is found guilty of a crime then first he has to be tried in a fair and open court. And if he is tried in a fair and open court then first you need to work out what you're accusing him of and what evidence you have. Praying to an ISIS flag isn't enough to get what you want. It's just not. You keep saying you want him in jail but you're not telling me how you get him in jail, what his crime is, what the evidence is, how you prove it in court, how long you keep them there etc. It'd be much better if the guys who committed this latest atrocity had been in jail but you're not telling me how you make that happen. Honestly Kwark, after the latest events in the UK I can only come to the conclusion that there are some serious procedural or structural issues in the intelligence systems of the country. Maybe they don't share information properly, maybe they're underfunded, maybe they're understaffed. In the end red flags and warning signs seem to be ignored or acted on so slowly that they can't stop these attacks. I can begin to understand how a non-sophisticated attack like stabbing/driving up onto a curb can be harder to stop. But for the bombing event which takes a lot more material and time I can't. And the most recent London attacks were also coordinated and involved multiple people - something else that should be preventable based on the fact that they need to coordinate and communicate for it.
I agree that right now it looks like the intelligence services aren't doing enough. The fact that they got specific intelligence that the Manchester bomber was planning an attack makes them look like shit. An inquiry should be held and whatever went wrong should be corrected.
That said, home made bombs aren't that hard to make with household chemicals and if all the components are purchased with cash from separate establishments a bomb isn't that easy to detect. A bomb doesn't necessarily indicate a systematic failure.
But I agree, something most likely went wrong and whatever went wrong should be fixed.
|
United States43565 Posts
On June 05 2017 23:18 Uldridge wrote:
Look, I can understand this. But I'm sure you can have strong correlation with people (actively) wanting to bring your society down with actions like praying to a flag that's a symbol to take your society down.
Why are they in your society when they want to bring it down? You could just deport them, right? It's not about jailing per se, it's about taking steps to make sure the general safety is harbored.
Make them fight your country from outside your country, instead of within. At least that's more manageable I think.
Unfortunately these people have all been British citizens and we no longer have Australia to send unwanted Brits to.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
they need to somehow isolate hate preachers/extremists in prison as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
