Police have said there has been "more than one" person killed on London Bridge. British Transport Police confirmed at 23:15 that there were "a number" of casualties and said there was an "incident that possibly involved a van and a knife". London Ambulance Service said "multiple resources" were sent to the scene. The Metropolitan Police confirmed a second armed response to nearby Borough Market where there were reports of stabbings. Police said shots have been fired. Police subsequently confirmed they are treating these as "terrorist incidents". A third police unit was sent to the Vauxhall area. Officers later said this was a stabbing and not connected to the operation at London Bridge and Borough Market.
I get that people could become brainwashed enough to do crazy shit like this when their quality of life is terrible, but it's always amazing to me that people can stay this twisted while living in a nation with a pretty high level of comfort.
Okay - they're all okay! Turns out, half of them left and crossed over London Bridge a few minutes before it happened, and the other half went on to the next pub, while a knife attack happened at the pub they'd all just left. Talk about close calls!
Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Apparently police are still looking for a suspect...ugh
Heard some numbers on CNN earlier, UK police have 3000+ open investigations on people with possible ties to Islamic extremism, with 20k+ on possible watch lists, ridiculously absurd numbers. I had no idea.
On June 04 2017 11:29 Falling wrote: Semantics I know, but what is the difference between an incident and an attack?
I think police were initially fairly cryptic with the language being used to report the event, quarantining off a huge area around the bridge with very few details for the first hour or two afterwards as to what happened, many media outlets then just ran with 'incident' during that time but as details have emerged it's obviously a planned attack at this point.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
Not even a trap.
Bush just went after the wrong people and not being aggressive enough with the terrorists.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
You basically said you were ok with civilians getting slaughtered because doing nothing served your nebulous concept of "british values"
Please be clear that you are not defending traditional british values, but rather your globalist leftist agenda, and this is pretty infuriating to anyone, as testie, who can clearly read trough your semantics and mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
You basically said you were ok with civilians getting slaughtered because doing nothing served your nebulous concept of "british values"
Please be clear that you are not defending traditional british values, but rather your globalist leftist agenda, and this is pretty infuriating to anyone, as testie, who can clearly read trough your semantics and mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
We're not a police state, nor are we becoming one. People don't disappear, people cannot be held without charge, disloyalty and other thought crimes don't exist, there are fair public trials and so forth. Very much not a police state. Sorry if that disappoints you for whatever reason.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
It's a meme based on the fact that the UK has the most CCTV per head of population. Also, the last government gave police the ability to check people's browsing history without informing them of what they were doing. They began by claiming this was only for terrorism investigations but eventually admitted it would be used for other 'serious' incidents. Translation: it can be used for anything. As you can see, the PM wants to push this further. It's a lot of nonsense that will infringe on the rights of British people and do nothing to stop terrorism.
As for British values, I am increasingly convinced that they are already dead, or so watered down as to barely be worth the name.
Yeah when the food standards agency has the authority to search through anyone's browsing history you have to admit we're becoming a state run by idiots with no regard for privacy. May is particularly authoritarian and incompetent at writing sound laws, so more by accident than anything we have taken some steps towards what some might call a 'police state'.
This is a definite encroachment on what you might call 'British Values', the definition of which is vague and watered down a bit by the fact that we are a democracy with freedom of speech and multiplicity of values.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
England has the most CCTVs per capita, London being an even greater concentration. Doesn't stop these kind of attacks whatsoever but won't be surprised to see them expand the police state further in order to justify "security". Heard about this on the radio earlier but thought they were bringing up the terror attack that happened a couple of months ago with the same circumstances.RIP to the newly deceased.
I thought the main immigration "rule" was to point at it every time a brown person goes postal so no one starts asking coherent questions about our ongoing wars, arms sales and network of financial secrecy jurisdictions that we sustain in order to protect the unsustainable privileges and powers of a tiny minority of national and international actors.
This horrendous attack was done by 3 people with a van and some knives. What security controls are going to "fix" that without destroying democracy? Isn't democracy a "British value"?
Perhaps they were Muslims. What immigration controls are going to "fix" that without institutionalising religious discrimination? Isn't religious equality a "British value"?
You stop terrorism by tackling the environment that creates people who would rather murder and die than keep living. That means tackling our wars, which regimes we support abroad and why and exposing the black money flows our financial economy relies on.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization and but was never intended to facilitate mass immigration from the colonies. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971 due to mass immigration of people whose ancestors had not gone to the colonies from Britain. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
It's a meme based on the fact that the UK has the most CCTV per head of population. Also, the last government gave police the ability to check people's browsing history without informing them of what they were doing. They began by claiming this was only for terrorism investigations but eventually admitted it would be used for other 'serious' incidents. Translation: it can be used for anything. As you can see, the PM wants to push this further. It's a lot of nonsense that will infringe on the rights of British people and do nothing to stop terrorism.
As for British values, I am increasingly convinced that they are already dead, or so watered down as to barely be worth the name.
Yeah, infringing on internet privacy etc isn't great. I can see why they want it but I'd much rather that they had to make their case to a judge with an advocate on the other side arguing against the case made by the security services. That'd have to be held in secret to avoid both notifying the suspect and telling the suspect why they got their suspicions (you can't say "our spy in ISIS spoke to him" in public) so I'd want them unsealed after a few years.
But that's a long, long way from a police state. In a police state people live in constant fear that the police will make them disappear without an explanation and sentence them without a trial.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population.
It's quite simple.
The UK isn't Germany.
Immigration into the UK isn't the same as immigration into Germany.
Muslim immigration into the UK primarily happened between 1948 and 1968 due to the people of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India being British subjects who came as economic immigrants. This only applies to Britain, not to Italy, Japan and Germany who did not rule the British Empire.
This was an unintended result of the policy and was in no way connected to population growth or GDP growth. It wasn't a tool to prop up GDP, it was a tool to resolve the confusion caused by the fact that a significant number of British people in 1948 were born in parts of the British Empire which were no longer going to be British.
This changed in 1968, a number of years before the refugee crisis in Germany.
The refugee crisis in Germany did not lead to large numbers of Muslim immigrants coming to Britain in the 50s. There are three reasons for this which I'll explain below. 1) Britain isn't in Germany. 2) The refugee crisis actually happened after the 50s. 3) Britain has its own immigration policy and also some water around it that stops people walking in.
Modern governments did not allow immigration between 1948 and 1968 as a strategy to stave off a recession out of fear of losing the election. There are two reasons for this which I'll explain below. 1) Modern British governments have sworn off using their time travel technology for political gain. 2) The voters would not necessarily reward one specific government for decisions made thirty years previously by a different government.
Any argument you hear anyone making about how Muslims ended up in Britain that blames anything that happened in the last 50 years is being made by an idiot. Britain was largely unaffected by the refugee crisis (and citing articles talking about Germany doesn't dispute that) and has had a points based immigration system for a long time.
In any event pulling the immigration level to prop up GDP historically lowers the standards of living. The guardian might love to tote those statistics to play to it's audience but I bet it won't talk about all of the factors, or if the gdp per capita remains the same - it doesn't.
The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
On June 05 2017 00:37 KwarK wrote: The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
I'm disagreeing with linking the guardian as a response to anything. Shitty left (and right) leaning "journalism" padding statistics to make a case is irritating at best, and deceitful at worst.
I never mentioned muslims. None of what you are posting is relevant. I am saying high immigration boosts nominal GDP which makes the economy look 'good'. So a country like Japan that has stagnant now declining population has an economy that is smaller in GDP terms than it was in 1995.
My point was simply the very high immigration seen since 1997 has led the UK to avoid several technical recessions.Mentioning refugees in Germany was not discussing their religion or whatever, just the fact that they boost GDP growth, mostly by increased government spending.Here's an article saying exactly that if you are interested : https://global.handelsblatt.com/imf-sees-refugee-spending-boosting-german-gdp-growth-by-0-3-in-2017-678211 This is refugees, obviously skilled migrants will boost GDP by a greater amount in the shorter term at least.
Anyway this is kind of getting off topic now and the comment really didn't need to be drilled down into this much detail.It's basic fact.
On June 05 2017 00:37 KwarK wrote: The UK hasn't been allowing mass Muslim immigration to prop up GDP. It's just not a thing that has happened. There is no historical basis for any part of that claim.
I'm disagreeing with linking the guardian as a response to anything. Shitty left (and right) leaning "journalism" padding statistics to make a case is irritating at best, and deceitful at worst.
Heh well i better update my list of 'acceptable' publications then. Which is pretty fucking tiny at this point i must say.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
On June 05 2017 00:34 bo1b wrote: In any event pulling the immigration level to prop up GDP historically lowers the standards of living. The guardian might love to tote those statistics to play to it's audience but I bet it won't talk about all of the factors, or if the gdp per capita remains the same - it doesn't.
Immigration does increase GDP per capita and it's not hard to see why. Another country takes the cost of raising an economically unproductive child, we reap the benefits of an economically productive adult.
Last time I checked GDP per capita was double what it was in 1980.
However.
British people work more than they did in 1980 and have less disposable income. Over that time GDP doesn't seem to have had very much to do with the economic well being or economic freedoms of the median citizen.
We fix this by reducing inequality, we reduce inequality by sinking the unsustainable insanity that is the new economic liberal consensus NOT by demanding our government reduce immigration to 5 figures.
A note on topicality: This isn't about the London Bridge attack, but it is a refutation of the blaming of immigrants for British poverty which seems to have come up because... err... I don't know why it came up so I don't know, maybe this is off topic.
Twelve people have been arrested after the London terror attack which left seven people dead and 48 injured.
The arrests in Barking, east London, followed a raid at a flat belonging to one of the three attackers.
The rest of the article goes over what happened with various eye witness statements, some guessing about ISIS "inspiration" and some bits of background.
On June 04 2017 10:05 travis wrote: Are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to come into a thread this sensitive in nature and post a politically volatile personal attack on an admin as the only content of your post, which also happens to be at the start of the thread?
Have some decency guys, focus on healthy relevant discussion and try to act respectfully towards people who may be impacted by these events.
In fairness he was only attacking my extremely British values. Apparently Testie is so upset about terrorists lashing out against British values and killing British people in an attempt to scare us into changing our values that he's started to agree with the terrorists. What a world.
Don't fall for the same traps America did post 9/11. We've given up so many freedoms it's astonishing and people clamor to give up more and more every day. Oddly enough its usually the right wing "muh freedoms" folks that are so eager to toss away more freedoms for some security theater.
Seems like Testie can't go more than a week or two without getting himself suspended again. Always over the exact same stuff.
Second this. Be good to eachother U.K. and don't fall into the traps my nation did.
Uhhh... Last I heard the UK is already basically a police state, and Ms May wants to implement forced backdoors into all encryption... Not to mention Brexit... I don't think they'r going to do so well on that avoiding the traps bit.
In what world is the UK a police state? Need to stop reading reddit a bit I think.
It's a meme based on the fact that the UK has the most CCTV per head of population. Also, the last government gave police the ability to check people's browsing history without informing them of what they were doing. They began by claiming this was only for terrorism investigations but eventually admitted it would be used for other 'serious' incidents. Translation: it can be used for anything. As you can see, the PM wants to push this further. It's a lot of nonsense that will infringe on the rights of British people and do nothing to stop terrorism.
As for British values, I am increasingly convinced that they are already dead, or so watered down as to barely be worth the name.
Yeah, from perspective this is terrorists winning.
On June 04 2017 23:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The main immigration 'rule' is keep enough immigrants coming in to keep nominal GDP positive.
If you knew anything about British political history, and it's clear you don't, you'd know that in 1948 the British Nationality Act gave the citizens of the commonwealth the right to settle in Britain as British subjects. It was an important part of decolonization. It was then significantly limited in 1968 and 1971. What we're seeing are the grandchildren of immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I know it doesn't fit your narrative of a secret cabal of lizard people globalists but the law you're objecting to was changed fifty years ago.
Not sure what that has to do with my argument exactly. It's no surprise that the developed countries with the lowest population growth rates have some of the lowest economic growth rates - Italy & Japan and those with relatively high rates have higher nominal GDP numbers.Australia and the UK two examples.Oh and Germany that added a million refugees in 2015.Here's an article from The Guardian "Refugees hold key to German economic growth says IMF" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/09/germany-imf-economy-growth-refugees-migrants-labour-ageing-population
It's about avoiding a technical recession.Because that is electoral suicide.Never mind that much of the growth is due to increased government spending.
You clearly have no idea what a police state is. The Soviet Union was a police state. The Polish People's Republic was a police state. Police state means that the ruling class uses power arbitrarily to opress citizens using police and other government agencies. It means people can be "disappeared" without trial or any good reason at all. It means the censorship of free media, art and the public debate. Police state rules with force, and when people are trying to protest, it does not care for lives it has to destroy to keep things under control. Regulating the internet is a step in a wrong direction for sure, but it's still not even remotely close to any kind of a "police state".
Do you think David Kelly committed suicide?
A single suspicious death from 2003 is clearly a proof of the UK being a police state, apologies for my ignorance.
This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they careb about is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
Happens all the time with anything NHS related, would fully expect the same to happen with defence spending. Lots of money with maximum benefit to the MP and minimum value for money to the population. Also can bet none of the money will go to the Police on the ground keeping people safe, who have also had their salaries shat on by the last Government or two.
About immigration propping things up, again look at the make up of staff working in hospitals (hint, most of them aren't British"). While it's saved on spending because the UK can stop training it's own people to do those jobs (see: Doctor's new shit contract, cuts to Nursing, OT, SALT, Physio bursaries), it's also driven Nursing, Medicine and all other allied health professional jobs into the floor as far as relative pay cuts and how NHSE can treat its workforce with fuck fucking contempt (sounds better when you're shitting on Foreigners rather than honest Brits). /rant over, sorry.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
Happens all the time with anything NHS related, would fully expect the same to happen with defence spending. Lots of money with maximum benefit to the MP and minimum value for money to the population. Also can bet none of the money will go to the Police on the ground keeping people safe, who have also had their salaries shat on by the last Government or two.
About immigration propping things up, again look at the make up of staff working in hospitals (hint, most of them aren't British"). While it's saved on spending because the UK can stop training it's own people to do those jobs (see: Doctor's new shit contract, cuts to Nursing, OT, SALT, Physio bursaries), it's also driven Nursing, Medicine and all other allied health professional jobs into the floor as far as relative pay cuts and how NHSE can treat its workforce with fuck fucking contempt (sounds better when you're shitting on Foreigners rather than honest Brits). /rant over, sorry.
He's saying we create war to artificially sustain our military industries. You're saying we do everything we can to avoid artificially sustaining our health service. What, because the NHS doesn't bribe politicians as much as BAE does? Illuminati level nonsense coming out here.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK.
It's that Theresa May will just pour billions into Philip May's Private Internet Security Firm Ltd which then goes into Theresa May's off shore investment portfolio on not being PM.
Edit: The NHS stuff was about the same guys investing resources into their own firms rather than actually aiming to make anythign better. Like outsourcing cheap and easy operations to private companies leaving the NHS to pick up the bill for the expensive complicated operations.
Edit 2: There is nowhere what he says we create the war, just that certain folk are profiterring off it.
On June 05 2017 02:12 Pr0wler wrote: This is how I see the current situation and modern politics : "Few dead per year are a great price for making billions though our great defense industry, so we will keep selling weapons and creating conflicts - that's out of the discussion. When terrorist attacks happen we will try to push even stricter laws, like... controling the internet. Then we will fund our companies to create the means to enforce these laws..." It's almost like perpeto mobile.
This is the exact thing I'm hearing every time I see May, Trump, Obama or whatever western politician talks about terrorist attacks. The only thing that they care for is the 'bonus' from the X company that they will recieve when they push the next law or create the next conflict. Everything else is pretty bad acting.
What is the implication? That we are responsible for war and by extension terrorism because we sell arms? You think they won't simply buy them elsewhere? Almost every country has a military. Selling arms is legitimate, and bombs bought from China are not any less lethal than bombs bought from the UK. .
It's simple and it's called corruption at the highest level of power. No illuminati, just money. All of the political parties have circles of companies that fund them and as a result of that expect some decisions to be made. So, when these politicians make decision the first thing they think about is not how 20 people died in a bombing attack. They are more concerned about the size of their offshore account and how much bigger it will become after they make the decision. Nothing wrong with selling weapons. The question is where and why. Also, where do you send your army and why.
If the intelligence services missed all the red flags and direct warnings about the Manchester attacker, I wonder if they missed any signs with this attack. And to top that off - if your intelligence services can't catch someone when people tell you they're worried about what he or she might do - how do your intelligence services use network snooping to actually make a difference?
In a lot of these cases you find out there were red flags that were missed and that no level of increased surveillance would have made a difference. And that the security failures were in how information was addressed and handled by all those responsible.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know This is an interesting article from a well respected, award winning journalist and documentary maker. I'm not saying this is true because I have no idea but it suggests that we knew much more about the Manchester bomber and/or his associates than anyone is letting on:
Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".
The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.
The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".
The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.
On June 05 2017 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote: http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know This is an interesting article from a well respected, award winning journalist and documentary maker. I'm not saying this is true because I have no idea but it suggests that we knew much more about the Manchester bomber and/or his associates than anyone is letting on:
Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".
The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.
The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".
The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.
I've got pretty sensible friends who call him a crackpot who "used to be good" because Killing Fields. I don't agree with them and I think the questions he is asking here are good here and I doubt they will be addressed, as they should be, with a good deal of public scrutiny. However, just in case, here's a similar piece from The Financial Times to increase the chances that don't end up discussing the source.
Salman Abedi was 16 when he first visited Libya, the country his parents had fled in 1993 to escape persecution under Muammer Gaddafi. But this was no ordinary coming-of-age trip for Abedi. Once there, he reunited with his father, who had left his family in Manchester three years earlier to aid the revolution against Gaddafi. And, according to friends of the family, members of the Libyan community in Manchester and sources in Libya, Abedi had come to fight.
He was not alone. It was 2011, and dozens of other Mancunians were already there. Mustafa Graf, the imam of the Didsbury mosque, the centre of the Libyan community in south Manchester, had also travelled back to Libya to help topple Gaddafi. Manchester became a fundraising centre for their war effort. Preachers travelled between the two countries, encouraging the fight, invariably couching it in terms of jihad.
...
Britain’s intelligence agencies knew the community well, too, and had longstanding dealings with its Islamist contingent. But the attack raises serious questions over their assessment of it. MI5, the UK’s domestic intelligence agency, facilitated the travel of many Islamist Mancunians back to Libya.
Until recently, the UK’s spymasters have not seen the community as a particular threat. Libyan Islamists in Manchester, many believed, were too focused on waging a national jihad in their homeland to be a threat to the UK. Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war and the spate of attacks in France, Belgium and Germany, anti-terror work in the UK and Europe has focused on young returnees from Syria.
...
Bilal Bettammer, a Libyan student and social activist in the revolution, now a lawyer in Canada, recalls the influx.
“I’d say of the more hardline groups, 60 or 70 per cent of their fighters in the beginning were from abroad. In 2011 we noticed a big influence from Manchester. There were lots of them in Derna. There were Libyan families here cashing British welfare cheques. Those went a long way in dinar.”
Mr Bettammer recalls watching a British preacher in Libya. “We have to choose sharia and reject secularism, he was saying. He was from Manchester, talking about stories of his life there. About the need to convert people. It was all the usual rhetoric but, in Libya, it had a violent meaning.”
Mr Bettammer says he and other secularist campaigners tried to warn the British ambassador to Libya at the time about the number of Britons and their radical views but were rebuffed. The UK, he says, wanted to encourage them instead because it viewed the Islamist groups as a more viable anti-Gaddafi alternative to native secularists.
I've picked out the bits I think are most relevant to what Jock was saying but the whole thing is worth a read.
I'd like to highlight again this from Bilal Bettammer, a Libyan student and social activist in the revolution, now a lawyer in Canada,
"The UK, he says, wanted to encourage them instead because it viewed the Islamist groups as a more viable anti-Gaddafi alternative to native secularists."
since the climate of the middle east was architected to destroy all the abuse of power through climate change we have an explanation for the middle east.
It seems most likely this string of attacks in the UK is actually caused by the illuminazi. it is a conspiracy theory, but it is probably true. if there were not some vast underground CIA these events would be a lot less likely. as some commentator somewhere pointed out, there's really no reason for this behavior. once these relatively happy middle eastern people travel to the united states or the EU they should be happy. but they aren't happy, and are engaged in the same protocols they are engaged in while they are in the middle east. this shows they think they're still in the middle east which is notoriously known for being a pre-architechted society against power abuse. therefore the only explanation is the illuminazi.
On June 05 2017 08:10 FiveHundred wrote: since the climate of the middle east was architected to destroy all the abuse of power through climate change we have an explanation for the middle east.
It seems most likely this string of attacks in the UK is actually caused by the illuminazi. it is a conspiracy theory, but it is probably true. if there were not some vast underground CIA these events would be a lot less likely. as some commentator somewhere pointed out, there's really no reason for this behavior. once these relatively happy middle eastern people travel to the united states or the EU they should be happy. but they aren't happy, and are engaged in the same protocols they are engaged in while they are in the middle east. this shows they think they're still in the middle east which is notoriously known for being a pre-architechted society against power abuse. therefore the only explanation is the illuminazi.
In 2016, he appeared in the documentary alongside a notorious preacher as they prayed to an Islamic State flag in a London park.
Unbelievable
It really is. People on watchlists need to be monitored much more closely. And to the strawmanners of this forum: no, that won't lead to a totalitarian system in the UK.
You wanted to ban ownership of cars and knives. That every muslim should be monitored. That sounds pretty totalitarian to me. So forgive me for not taking your words at face value. Apparently it takes 25 people to monitor each person 24/7, so it isn't suprising that M15 cannot do so.
I did not. Stop saying bullshit. You are just good at strawmanning and not proposing any solution. One of the killers prayed to an ISIS flag in a London park and there were no further investigations. If you think we should accept that, you are just a delusional human being.
On June 05 2017 22:28 SoSexy wrote: Praying to an ISIS flag in a public park in London with 2 radicalized preachers is not concrete enough for you?
Their conviction for what crime?
The same you would get in Germany for doing the nazi sign to a nazi flag in a public park in Berlin.
Also: do you think that this would damage the community overall? If we were to implement a rule that people exposing an ISIS flag should be arrested, do you honestly believe that many innocent citizens would be arrested for mistake? Would you call it a totalitarian move against basic rights?
On June 05 2017 22:28 SoSexy wrote: Praying to an ISIS flag in a public park in London with 2 radicalized preachers is not concrete enough for you?
Their conviction for what crime?
The same you would get in Germany for doing the nazi sign to a nazi flag in a public park in Berlin.
Yeah, we don't have that.
If the guy shows ISIS sympathies then by all means take the fact that he is praying to an ISIS flag in a public park to a judge and get permission to have someone read all his texts and monitor his online activities. And if that leads to him talking about renting a van to run people over then you can get him on that because conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack is concrete and criminal.
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.
On June 05 2017 22:35 SoSexy wrote: Oh I see Kwark. Your plan worked really nice until now.
You're right that law enforcement would have a much easier time if they could just lock up anyone they thought might commit a crime before crimes were committed without having evidence. But there are also risks involved in doing that.
People get trials in Britain and if you don't have any evidence that a crime has been committed or will be committed then arresting someone won't achieve anything other than tipping off the person that you're watching them.
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.
How exactly do you see this going? Talk me through the idea in your head.
Part 1 Guy prays to an ISIS flag
Part 2 Police arrest the guy
Part 3 Police charge him. What do they charge him with SoSexy?
Part 4 He goes to court. What evidence do they show to secure a conviction?
Part 5 He's sentenced. How long is he sentenced for?
Part 6 He serves his time. What then?
I get that you're upset but you're not thinking this through. It's a complicated process and what you're saying doesn't address any of the problems.
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.
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 22:35 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.
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 22:35 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 22:42 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.
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.
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 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
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
I wouldn't be opposed with anyone locked up for terrorism related charges getting put in an isolated prison and put on a rolling "still a terrorist I see, okay, 10 more years on the sentence and we'll check back then" life sentence. A fixed length sentence doesn't really make sense for potential terrorists who haven't changed their beliefs.
On June 05 2017 23:10 Reaps wrote: 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
1) Stop bombing Muslims in the Middle East. 2) Work hard to become energy independent. 3) Stop buying Saudi oil. 4) Stop selling the Saudis weapons. 5) Stop accepting Saudi funding for mosques. 6) Spend money on ensuring that young Muslim children are integrated in western society before they become radicalised
On June 05 2017 23:26 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't be opposed with anyone locked up for terrorism related charges getting put in an isolated prison and put on a rolling "still a terrorist I see, okay, 10 more years on the sentence and we'll check back then" life sentence.
We've started doing this recently thankfully, last year i believe. It's a start at least and need to see more of the same.
And not things like "regulating the internet" as Theresa May seems to think is the answer.
They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
Oddly enough the kind of people that do this dumb shit generally aren't Arabic speakers, or especially educated at all. They're mostly misfits who are pissed because the world hasn't given them what they think they deserve. Think a brown Elliot Rodger type. The kind of people who can become smart scholars of the Koran are the kind of people who have a wife and a mortgage.
The film Four Lions is a pretty good example and should be required watching.
On June 05 2017 23:10 Reaps wrote: 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
1) Stop bombing Muslims in the Middle East. 2) Work hard to become energy independent. 3) Stop buying Saudi oil. 4) Stop selling the Saudis weapons. 5) Stop accepting Saudi funding for mosques. 6) Spend money on ensuring that young Muslim children are integrated in western society before they become radicalised
The foreign policy excuse a lot of people from the left seem to like to use isn't as simple as they like to think.
The biggest victims of Isis are other Muslims in the middle east that have a different interpretation of Islam, these people do not have a foreign policy.
The second largest victims are religious minorities like the yazidis who are being slaughtered in the tens of thousands, these people do not have a foreign policy.
Sweden has a neutral foreign policy and still suffered a terrorist attack.
Or the fact that this has been going on for hundreds of years and isnt new.
That said, the West's horrible foreign policy could most likely be a factor in some terrorist attacks and frequency, but its not the be all and end all that many claim it to be (not really talking to you, but a lot of people from the left believe this)
But yes with that, i agree we should stop interfering with the middle east as it'll only make things worse.
As for number 6, you'd be hard pressed to find a country that appeases Muslims and other minorities than the UK does.
I understand the government is kinda tied because it can't really arrest citizens just because they are praying to some isis flag. How about social media? Twitter, facebook, google, how have they not completely eliminated ISIS/islamist specific rhetoric completely from their platforms? So much of the recruitment is done w/ propaganda on these spaces so it would be the first area to target.
You do not seem to grasp that Saudi Arabia lays the foundation for ISIS and extremists by preaching a version of Islam that is incompatible with the west. Once the kids pick up on this from the books and mosques and internet sources which are all funded by Saudi Arabia, they become vulnerable to ISIS propaganda which is based on the very notion that Islam is incompatible with the west.
It doesn't matter what the foreign policy of Sweden is, although I'm sure they're also selling weapons to the Saudis in one way or another. The fact that the west is propping up the Saudis through points 2 to 5 and allowing them to spread this hate with impunity is what is causing the problem. That is also why the yazidis are dying. Because Saudi Arabia is spreading nonsensical hatred. They don't need a foreign policy for that.
Six is not about appeasement, but rather ensuring that there are Imams and books that teach a secularized European version of Islam.
They're not just angry young adults, KwarK. I'm not saying they're educated, but they've done enough "research" and "introspection" to come to the conclusion that their current environment needs to be cleansed.
Don't underestimate the intelligence of those that preach against your culture. The people that are pushed into doing these actions may not be the most intelligent, but the apparatus behind it all has good persuasive tactics for these troubled minds.
I understand the government is kinda tied because it can't really arrest citizens just because they are praying to some isis flag. How about social media? Twitter, facebook, google, how have they not eliminated ISIS/islamist specific rhetoric completely from their platforms? So much of the recruitment is done w/ propaganda on these spaces so it would be the first area to target.
I think these major corporations that have access to so much information, and also have accurate methods to sort through all of it should really help the government. If someone is searching ISIS articles and making pro-ISIS posts on facebook, that should be a yellow flag. If someone is googling how to make a bomb, which day/time is best, what location is most crowded, then that should be red --> search warrant --> search property for weapons. Google definitely has access to this information, they just need to sort through it properly. Maybe they already do this and I am just unaware, but based on the last few attacks it looks like they ignored all warnings.
On June 05 2017 23:48 a_flayer wrote: You do not seem to grasp that Saudi Arabia lays the foundation for ISIS and extremists by preaching a version of Islam that is incompatible with the west. Once the kids pick up on this from the books and mosques and internet sources which are all funded by Saudi Arabia, they become vulnerable to ISIS propaganda which is based on the very notion that Islam is incompatible with the west.
It doesn't matter what the foreign policy of Sweden is, although I'm sure they're also selling weapons to the Saudis in one way or another. The fact that the west is propping up the Saudis through points 2 to 5 and allowing them to spread this hate with impunity is what is causing the problem. That is also why the yazidis are dying. Because Saudi Arabia is spreading nonsensical hatred. They don't need a foreign policy for that.
Six is not about appeasement, but rather ensuring that there are Imams and books that teach a secularized European version of Islam.
I never disagreed with anything you said about Saudi Arabia..
On June 05 2017 23:50 biology]major wrote: I understand the government is kinda tied because it can't really arrest citizens just because they are praying to some isis flag. How about social media? Twitter, facebook, google, how have they not eliminated ISIS/islamist specific rhetoric completely from their platforms? So much of the recruitment is done w/ propaganda on these spaces so it would be the first area to target.
Stop with the nonsensical attempts to cover it up or brush it under the rug. Look at where the money is coming from to spread the hatred. Who is funding the spreading of an ideology that is at the root of all this? Cut off their funding, and you won't have to keep cleaning up after them.
On June 05 2017 23:48 Uldridge wrote: They're not just angry young adults, KwarK. I'm not saying they're educated, but they've done enough "research" and "introspection" to come to the conclusion that their current environment needs to be cleansed.
Don't underestimate the intelligence of those that preach against your culture. The people that are pushed into doing these actions may not be the most intelligent, but the apparatus behind it all has good persuasive tactics for these troubled minds.
Sure, but you were arguing that they're not really citizens because they speak Arabic etc and I don't think that's an accurate picture of who we're dealing with. I'd be surprised if they had more than a rudimentary grasp of Arabic and I think if you sent them to Pakistan they'd be hanging out in a McDonalds because it's the only food they'd eat and asking people for the wifi password so they could update their facebook. That's my point. That they're dumb British people who get disillusioned and disappointed and fall into a cult, the same way that red pillers etc do.
On June 05 2017 23:48 a_flayer wrote: You do not seem to grasp that Saudi Arabia lays the foundation for ISIS and extremists by preaching a version of Islam that is incompatible with the west. Once the kids pick up on this from the books and mosques and internet sources which are all funded by Saudi Arabia, they become vulnerable to ISIS propaganda which is based on the very notion that Islam is incompatible with the west.
It doesn't matter what the foreign policy of Sweden is, although I'm sure they're also selling weapons to the Saudis in one way or another. The fact that the west is propping up the Saudis through points 2 to 5 and allowing them to spread this hate with impunity is what is causing the problem. That is also why the yazidis are dying. Because Saudi Arabia is spreading nonsensical hatred. They don't need a foreign policy for that.
Six is not about appeasement, but rather ensuring that there are Imams and books that teach a secularized European version of Islam.
I never disagreed with anything you said about Saudi Arabia..
I misinterpreted what you meant by "foreign policy" then. I thought that your mention of "foreign policy" included the agreements between Saudi Arabia and western nations. I still think the bombing of the Middle East is basically just helping terrorists recruit people (from the pool of people who share the fundamental ideology spread by Saudi Arabia).
Not to mention invading other countries or sending western parents with their kids to places like Libya to fight in the name of your foreign policy to help overthrow Gaddafi by fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda and immersing themselves in that hateful ideology. That must have been the stupidest shit I've read in a long time.
On June 05 2017 23:48 a_flayer wrote: You do not seem to grasp that Saudi Arabia lays the foundation for ISIS and extremists by preaching a version of Islam that is incompatible with the west. Once the kids pick up on this from the books and mosques and internet sources which are all funded by Saudi Arabia, they become vulnerable to ISIS propaganda which is based on the very notion that Islam is incompatible with the west.
It doesn't matter what the foreign policy of Sweden is, although I'm sure they're also selling weapons to the Saudis in one way or another. The fact that the west is propping up the Saudis through points 2 to 5 and allowing them to spread this hate with impunity is what is causing the problem. That is also why the yazidis are dying. Because Saudi Arabia is spreading nonsensical hatred. They don't need a foreign policy for that.
Six is not about appeasement, but rather ensuring that there are Imams and books that teach a secularized European version of Islam.
I never disagreed with anything you said about Saudi Arabia..
Okay but it doesn't make sense to oppose the point on foreign policy if you agree with the other points, as the point on foreign policy has been a source of factual fuel for the propaganda of the other points. You're going to convince fewer people that the west is the enemy because they bomb the muslim world when you, you know, don't bomb the muslim world as the west. It's also weird that you claim that it's a simplistic vision cause there are other factors when a_flayer has just offered you a bunch of other points to target other factors.
On June 05 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote: Sure, but you were arguing that they're not really citizens because they speak Arabic etc and I don't think that's an accurate picture of who we're dealing with. I'd be surprised if they had more than a rudimentary grasp of Arabic and I think if you sent them to Pakistan they'd be hanging out in a McDonalds because it's the only food they'd eat and asking people for the wifi password so they could update their facebook. That's my point. That they're dumb British people who get disillusioned and disappointed and fall into a cult, the same way that red pillers etc do.
I'm arguing that some (but definitely not all, maybe most) have more ties to their roots than they have to the country where they were born and brought up. They live in segregated communities and speak two languages. I see this enough in daily life at my work (they all speak Turkish, they even speak Turkish to the Turkish customers in a Belgian (Dutch speaking) fast food chain and I'm okay with that) and in public (the trams full of school children in mornings or evening are full with people not speaking Dutch; and that's fine). + Show Spoiler +
People in China Town for example, how American are they actually?
But it comes with a cost. They haven't bonded with this country, but with their community. The (sense of) citizenship is diluted. I'm sure some of those people will be of the kind you've described, but I'm pretty sure a lot of them also won't be those people and have completely devoted themselves to bringing down the system they've reject and live every moment in their existence to accomplish that goal.
Edit: or perhaps I should say that some of those people have more ties to the communities that reject the society they were born and brought up in. If we're talking about non-descendants of immigrants.
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
Oddly enough the kind of people that do this dumb shit generally aren't Arabic speakers, or especially educated at all. They're mostly misfits who are pissed because the world hasn't given them what they think they deserve. Think a brown Elliot Rodger type. The kind of people who can become smart scholars of the Koran are the kind of people who have a wife and a mortgage.
The film Four Lions is a pretty good example and should be required watching.
That movie is so good. It really does give some great and accessible perspective on the whole issue IMO.
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
Oddly enough the kind of people that do this dumb shit generally aren't Arabic speakers, or especially educated at all. They're mostly misfits who are pissed because the world hasn't given them what they think they deserve. Think a brown Elliot Rodger type. The kind of people who can become smart scholars of the Koran are the kind of people who have a wife and a mortgage.
The film Four Lions is a pretty good example and should be required watching.
That movie is so good. It really does give some great and accessible perspective on the whole issue IMO.
The idea that people are attracted to ISIS in the western world because they are uneducated is false. Many of them are well-educated. World Bank study from 2016:
"ISIL’s foreign fighters are surprisingly well-educated."Using the fighters' self-reported educational levels, the study concluded that "69% of recruits reported at least a secondary-level education"of which "a large fraction have gone on to study at university" and also that "only 15% of recruits left school before high school; less than 2% are illiterate." The study also found that foreign fighters are often more educated than their countrymen where those "from Europe and in Central Asia have similar levels of education to their countrymen" while those "from the Middle East, North Africa, and South and East Asia are significantly more educated than what is typical in their home nations." The report notes that its conclusions that terrorism is not driven by poverty and low levels of education does not conform with previous research.However, the report did find a strong correlation "between a country’s male unemployment rate and the propensity of the country to supply foreign fighters" leading the report to recommend that governments pursue a policy of lowering the unemployment rate among the educated as a counter-terrorism strategy.
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
These are people arguing about which way of serving an invisible man who lives in the sky is right. There is no "true Islam" or "false Islam" because the words true and false can't be applied to religion. For ISIS their interpretation is true, for moderates the ISIS interpretation is false. It's not like one day someone will prove what the right way to be a Muslim is and the rest of them will go "oh, looks like we've been doing it wrong, better start beheading infidels".
That and that the people in charge of ISIS are making a lot of money, and have a lot of power. And at this point I honestly believe that they're just using ISIS as a means to get what they want and that its less about religion (for them) and more about using religion to get foot soldiers to do their bidding and solidify their power, land grab, and income.
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
There is no logical connection between the two sentences...
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
There is no logical connection between the two sentences...
There is. The idea is that someone who knows the ins and outs of a topic is usually more qualified to talk about it. If we are discussing a medical operation, I am going to trust more a PhD in surgery rather than a random person. Do you?
Therefore, it is not out of this world to imagine that, due to his PhD, Al-Baghdadi could know more about Islam than the average Joe.
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
There is no logical connection between the two sentences...
There is. The idea is that someone who knows the ins and outs of a topic is usually more qualified to talk about it. If we are discussing a medical operation, I am going to trust more a PhD in surgery rather than a random person. Do you?
Therefore, it is not out of this world to imagine that, due to his PhD, Al-Baghdadi could know more about Islam than the average Joe.
You're comparing hard science and soft science, speak about bending facts to fit your narrative. You don't need any specific religion in order to establish a violent ideology around it.
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
There is no logical connection between the two sentences...
There is. The idea is that someone who knows the ins and outs of a topic is usually more qualified to talk about it. If we are discussing a medical operation, I am going to trust more a PhD in surgery rather than a random person. Do you?
Therefore, it is not out of this world to imagine that, due to his PhD, Al-Baghdadi could know more about Islam than the average Joe.
Can't quote numbers, but I'd wager that most similarily educated people in Islamic Studies don't interpret the Islam the way that guy does. So no, it doesn't raise any provoking questions, only for fuckwits trying to find a reason to oppress one religion (disclosure: I'm not religious and think most organised religion is a tool for control).
So unemployement plays a role, but education does not. Don't forget that Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This raises the provoking question: what if ISIS is actually true islam and moderate islam is the false one?
There is no logical connection between the two sentences...
There is. The idea is that someone who knows the ins and outs of a topic is usually more qualified to talk about it. If we are discussing a medical operation, I am going to trust more a PhD in surgery rather than a random person. Do you?
Therefore, it is not out of this world to imagine that, due to his PhD, Al-Baghdadi could know more about Islam than the average Joe.
I'm sure someone has to have said this, but to claim there is a false "sense" of a religion is a nebulous claim. Al-Baghdadi's taken name right now is Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi or literally Abu Bakr, the Baghdadi which in turn is taken from Islamic history. If you know your Islamic history then you know that Abu Bakr was father-in-law to Muhammad and the first caliph ever (Rashidun Caliphate). With that said it might be clear that this man has taken that name because in his studies of Islamic theology he has come to think that the time period where Abu Bakr was the leader of the Muslim world was a high point for the Islamic world. He might also have come to believe that the West's intrusion into that world over the last 1400 or so years has stifled its growth as the rightful power over the world under god. I don't know any of this for certain, but the point is that this is an interpretation of Islam that is very radical. There are other interpretations, other schools of thought, that are not so radical, and are in fact very moderate. Furthermore there are swathes of Muslims who are religious to a point - and just like many other religious people - go to worship every once in a while, follow the laws as they can, and that's about it. Those groups also have interpretations and follow the teachings of certain Imams and the schools of thought those Imams are a part of. What you should take away from this is that all of these are interpretations of a religion from its core doctrines and those doctrines assert the importance of certain parts over others. Saying that this PhD is showing a true version of Islam is a false statement because he has taken up a specific interpretation of the religion, not the religion itself, (in fact ISIS breaks so many rules they are hardly good Muslims in any sort of fashion). So a version may be truer to the actual statements of the books, but farther from the accepted doctrinal/theological interpretations of the book which lead to how people actually worship or believe in god (this is more similar to Judaism than modern Christianity).
Secondly, just to put that idea to rest, no Al Baghdadi's version of Islam isn't anywhere close to right. His group breaks important laws that are delineated in the Koran (Killing during Ramadan). They take things so literally in some cases and then incredibly figuratively in others (Jihad against those of the book), and many other issues. So in this case, not the PhD is out for power and has transformed Islam into a binding agent, and therefore has made it less about being a good Muslim and more about Islamic-fascist-supremacism. So no, his interpretation doesn't have a lot to sit on. Grant you that I don't have the PhD he has, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt.
For practical purposes a "moderate" interpretation of islam should be at the bare minimum be secular and tolerant. No caliphate ideas, and no imposing islam in any version/interpretation on others. How do we screen for this? dunno.
On June 06 2017 06:49 biology]major wrote: For practical purposes a "moderate" interpretation of islam should be at the bare minimum be secular and tolerant. No caliphate ideas, and no imposing islam in any version/interpretation on others. How do we screen for this? dunno.
You don't. The people committing these acts were born in the country or have lived there for years. They are likely specifically targeted by recruiters because they are less likely to be watched. As opposed to refugees, religious leaders or recent immigrants. There is no special amount of "radical Islam" the government can prevent from entering the country that will reduce these attacks. The goverment needs to figure out how they are being recruited and interrupt that process. It is like stopping spys from entering the country. Asking them if they believe in spying isn't going to get the job done.
On June 05 2017 23:10 Reaps wrote: 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
1) Stop bombing Muslims in the Middle East. 2) Work hard to become energy independent. 3) Stop buying Saudi oil. 4) Stop selling the Saudis weapons. 5) Stop accepting Saudi funding for mosques. 6) Spend money on ensuring that young Muslim children are integrated in western society before they become radicalised
The foreign policy excuse a lot of people from the left seem to like to use isn't as simple as they like to think.
The biggest victims of Isis are other Muslims in the middle east that have a different interpretation of Islam, these people do not have a foreign policy.
The second largest victims are religious minorities like the yazidis who are being slaughtered in the tens of thousands, these people do not have a foreign policy.
Sweden has a neutral foreign policy and still suffered a terrorist attack.
Or the fact that this has been going on for hundreds of years and isnt new.
That said, the West's horrible foreign policy could most likely be a factor in some terrorist attacks and frequency, but its not the be all and end all that many claim it to be (not really talking to you, but a lot of people from the left believe this)
But yes with that, i agree we should stop interfering with the middle east as it'll only make things worse.
As for number 6, you'd be hard pressed to find a country that appeases Muslims and other minorities than the UK does.
ISIS is pretty much a creation of western foreign policy blunders.
Invade Iraq, fire the military, commit atrocities, back a faction that you think you can control, support them as they commit atrocities. Support, with arms and training, radical elements of an insurgency in neighbouring Syria and refuse to stop the war and chaos because Assad is closer to your regional enemies than he is to you. Profit.
And for some actors I really do mean profit. Sections of our military-industrial complex and a few regional players are doing much better than they were 10 years ago. For quite a few powerful people this isn't a "blunder". Which isn't to say that ISIS was planned, that would be nuts, it's just that to some the consequences of this insanity are either of no consequence or useful so why try to avoid them?
This isn't a guilt trip. It's not "We're very bad so we are being punished". It's "Turns out that if you destroy states, what replaces them is a blood bath and, if you're going to run a blood bath, you're gonna get some red on you."
So again, the ultimate cause of this particular brand of nut job mass murder is our foreign policy, fixing that is the long term solution. Short term... Probably look at funding and focus of our police and intelligence services. One thing that really needs to be looked at long and hard is our burgeoning reliance on signals intelligence, partly because it's actual efficacy in doing what it's supposed to - stopping mass murder- is questionable and partly because this sort of mass surveillance in an attempt to detect "radicals" is handing the sort of powers to the state which are ripe for abuse.
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
Oddly enough the kind of people that do this dumb shit generally aren't Arabic speakers, or especially educated at all. They're mostly misfits who are pissed because the world hasn't given them what they think they deserve. Think a brown Elliot Rodger type. The kind of people who can become smart scholars of the Koran are the kind of people who have a wife and a mortgage.
The film Four Lions is a pretty good example and should be required watching.
That movie is so good. It really does give some great and accessible perspective on the whole issue IMO.
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?
I wonder if things would be a little more cleared up if the the West returned the favour and also declared war on ISIS, the same as they have already done with us. We have one side that thinks they are fighting a war and another side that thinks that they are not. But once both sides are definitely fighting a war, then things like sedition and treason come into play, even in a liberal and open society, plotting against one's country in a time of war. It's one thing to salute the flag of the Nazi regime, a loathsome regime that we are at peace and quite another to do so (and encourage other to join) when one is at war with that same regime. It's interesting to me how certain preachers that do the media circuit have managed find a perfect balance between legality and aiding ISIS. Anjem Choudary comes to mind- he finally made a mistake by committing his allegiance on paper but except for that he could have continued to doing the work of ISIS openly and freely.
What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
On June 06 2017 11:43 Amarok wrote: What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
The problem with the whole "All factors are important" is that you can't really address all factors at the same time. If you're going to focus on how islam is an evil religion with problems, you can't really justify not fucking over muslims. What, are you going to let this evil person live next door to someone? Even if you do decide to do that, the simple fact that you've declared islam the enemy is going to damage your plans to make muslims integrate in your society, which is one of your key goals in the other approach.
Very few people actually think that there's only one factor at play, you haven't discovered something big here. Now if we go further into it, we can see that all religions are "evil religions with problems", in that they can be mostly be used to justify anything due to being ideologies. We can see that islam itself has had periods where it didn't create this amount of radicalism and terrorism, despite the ideology being unchanged. This should lead rational people to want to address the contextual factors more than the ideological ones in an attempt to fix this specific situation, even though I agree that a world where more people are agnostics would generally fare better.
On June 06 2017 11:43 Amarok wrote: What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
The problem with the whole "All factors are important" is that you can't really address all factors at the same time. If you're going to focus on how islam is an evil religion with problems, you can't really justify not fucking over muslims. What, are you going to let this evil person live next door to someone? Even if you do decide to do that, the simple fact that you've declared islam the enemy is going to damage your plans to make muslims integrate in your society, which is one of your key goals in the other approach.
Very few people actually think that there's only one factor at play, you haven't discovered something big here.Now if we go further into it, we can see that all religions are "evil religions with problems", in that they can be mostly be used to justify anything due to being ideologies. We can see that islam itself has had periods where it didn't create this amount of radicalism and terrorism, despite the ideology being unchanged. This should lead rational people to want to address the contextual factors more than the ideological ones in an attempt to fix this specific situation, even though I agree that a world where more people are agnostics would generally fare better.
Geez I'm not trying to say I've discovered the big solution to the problem. That you immediately went down that angle underscores the problems with political discourse that make an issue like this impossible to do anything about. The rest of your post being a dismissal of Islamic doctrines as a key part of the problem does much the same.
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas. Christianity is the obvious one (thank God!), but political ideologies are criticized all the time and the components of Islam that are not compatible with secular democracy need to be treated the same. The problem is that when most politicians/thinkers look to remove all culpability for the religion the racists who care more about a person's skin colour than ideas get all the oxygen. Ultimately this is the reason garbage like "OMG HE SAID ISLAMIC TERRORISM" gets traction with people.
The other problem is that critics of the religion tend to end up dead or needing 24/7 protection. A pretty powerful deterrent if ever there was one.
I really don't want my posts to come across as just laying this all at the door of Islam and I certainly wouldn't call the religion "evil". It desperately needs reform and won't get it in a world where one side denies there's a specific problem and the other is more interested in eradicating brown people.
On June 06 2017 11:43 Amarok wrote: What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
The problem with the whole "All factors are important" is that you can't really address all factors at the same time. If you're going to focus on how islam is an evil religion with problems, you can't really justify not fucking over muslims. What, are you going to let this evil person live next door to someone? Even if you do decide to do that, the simple fact that you've declared islam the enemy is going to damage your plans to make muslims integrate in your society, which is one of your key goals in the other approach.
Very few people actually think that there's only one factor at play, you haven't discovered something big here.Now if we go further into it, we can see that all religions are "evil religions with problems", in that they can be mostly be used to justify anything due to being ideologies. We can see that islam itself has had periods where it didn't create this amount of radicalism and terrorism, despite the ideology being unchanged. This should lead rational people to want to address the contextual factors more than the ideological ones in an attempt to fix this specific situation, even though I agree that a world where more people are agnostics would generally fare better.
Geez I'm not trying to say I've discovered the big solution to the problem. That you immediately went down that angle underscores the problems with political discourse that make an issue like this impossible to do anything about. The rest of your post being a dismissal of Islamic doctrines as a key part of the problem does much the same.
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas. Christianity is the obvious one (thank God!), but political ideologies are criticized all the time and the components of Islam that are not compatible with secular democracy need to be treated the same. The problem is that when most politicians/thinkers look to remove all culpability for the religion the racists who care more about a person's skin colour than ideas get all the oxygen. Ultimately this is the reason garbage like "OMG HE SAID ISLAMIC TERRORISM" gets traction with people.
The other problem is that critics of the religion tend to end up dead or needing 24/7 protection. A pretty powerful deterrent if ever there was one.
I really don't want my posts to come across as just laying this all at the door of Islam and I certainly wouldn't call the religion "evil". It desperately needs reform and won't get it in a world where one side denies there's a specific problem and the other is more interested in eradicating brown people.
Dude read your own post maybe? You come here and say that the problem is that people think x and y when you think z. If you don't want people down that angle, don't push that angle. The fact that you read my post as a dismissal of ideological problems, when I factually acknowledged the problems and then gave you my reasoning to focus on the other problems instead, also tells me that you have a preference concerning which factors you want addressed.
You also haven't even attempted to argue my core point, which is that those directions for the solution are antithetical to one another and as such can't be addressed at the same time.
On June 06 2017 11:43 Amarok wrote: What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
The problem with the whole "All factors are important" is that you can't really address all factors at the same time. If you're going to focus on how islam is an evil religion with problems, you can't really justify not fucking over muslims. What, are you going to let this evil person live next door to someone? Even if you do decide to do that, the simple fact that you've declared islam the enemy is going to damage your plans to make muslims integrate in your society, which is one of your key goals in the other approach.
Very few people actually think that there's only one factor at play, you haven't discovered something big here.Now if we go further into it, we can see that all religions are "evil religions with problems", in that they can be mostly be used to justify anything due to being ideologies. We can see that islam itself has had periods where it didn't create this amount of radicalism and terrorism, despite the ideology being unchanged. This should lead rational people to want to address the contextual factors more than the ideological ones in an attempt to fix this specific situation, even though I agree that a world where more people are agnostics would generally fare better.
Geez I'm not trying to say I've discovered the big solution to the problem. That you immediately went down that angle underscores the problems with political discourse that make an issue like this impossible to do anything about. The rest of your post being a dismissal of Islamic doctrines as a key part of the problem does much the same.
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas. Christianity is the obvious one (thank God!), but political ideologies are criticized all the time and the components of Islam that are not compatible with secular democracy need to be treated the same. The problem is that when most politicians/thinkers look to remove all culpability for the religion the racists who care more about a person's skin colour than ideas get all the oxygen. Ultimately this is the reason garbage like "OMG HE SAID ISLAMIC TERRORISM" gets traction with people.
The other problem is that critics of the religion tend to end up dead or needing 24/7 protection. A pretty powerful deterrent if ever there was one.
I really don't want my posts to come across as just laying this all at the door of Islam and I certainly wouldn't call the religion "evil". It desperately needs reform and won't get it in a world where one side denies there's a specific problem and the other is more interested in eradicating brown people.
Dude read your own post maybe? You come here and say that the problem is that people think x and y when you think z. If you don't want people down that angle, don't push that angle. The fact that you read my post as a dismissal of ideological problems, when I factually acknowledged the problems and then gave you my reasoning to focus on the other problems instead, also tells me that you have a preference concerning which factors you want addressed.
You also haven't even attempted to argue my core point, which is that those directions for the solution are antithetical to one another and as such can't be addressed at the same time.
Your entire post focused on the parts of my post that referenced Islam. Why would I not specifically address that? Your characterisation of criticism as "Islam is evil" is the exact kind of reductio ad absurdum hinders any capacity for a discussion on the issue.
And while we're talking about reading posts, how about you read mine?
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas.
I clearly don't think the problem you raised is one that has two antithetical solutions. Nor did I say it was one with an easy solution. I said in order for it to be possible the quality of public discourse needs to improve.
On June 06 2017 11:43 Amarok wrote: What tires me about this debate is how everyone seems to have the "one issue" that they push as the key cause that drives this garbage. It's all because of western interventionism! No it's all the fault of Islam! No these people are just Muslim versions of the school shooters! The Muslim community harbours these people! On and on it goes, as if a problem of this complexity and magnitude is all down to a single factor.
The reality is that all these things factor in. Islam is a religion with deep problems and the fact such an interpretation is even within the realms of possibility should be more than enough evidence of this (and that's even before we start talking about it's more mundane problematic tenants). Similarly western interventionism over several decades has been extremely unhelpful, as has our continued support unsavoury groups and regimes (both big and small). People are right that the Muslim community are ultimately the ones that need to play the greatest role in solving this issue, but it's also true that they're facing an almost impossibly difficult problem and ultimately can't be responsible for authorities not having very good tools for dealing with potential radicals they themselves have identified. The spiritual void that so many feel in modern society likely plays a role in certain people becoming the combination of suicidal and violent that manifests in both terrorist attacks and school shootings, but getting a grip on that problem and formulating even remotely plausible solutions is obviously very difficult here.
Point is, we need to talk about all these factors together, because no good solution is going to be achieved by focusing heavily on one and only one part of the problem. Both sides of the political debate have done well at identifying parts of the problem while completely denying or ignoring other sides. It's an issue that's completely inoculated by the abject level of political discourse in the west at the moment. It's hard to see that side of it getting better either.
The problem with the whole "All factors are important" is that you can't really address all factors at the same time. If you're going to focus on how islam is an evil religion with problems, you can't really justify not fucking over muslims. What, are you going to let this evil person live next door to someone? Even if you do decide to do that, the simple fact that you've declared islam the enemy is going to damage your plans to make muslims integrate in your society, which is one of your key goals in the other approach.
Very few people actually think that there's only one factor at play, you haven't discovered something big here.Now if we go further into it, we can see that all religions are "evil religions with problems", in that they can be mostly be used to justify anything due to being ideologies. We can see that islam itself has had periods where it didn't create this amount of radicalism and terrorism, despite the ideology being unchanged. This should lead rational people to want to address the contextual factors more than the ideological ones in an attempt to fix this specific situation, even though I agree that a world where more people are agnostics would generally fare better.
Geez I'm not trying to say I've discovered the big solution to the problem. That you immediately went down that angle underscores the problems with political discourse that make an issue like this impossible to do anything about. The rest of your post being a dismissal of Islamic doctrines as a key part of the problem does much the same.
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas. Christianity is the obvious one (thank God!), but political ideologies are criticized all the time and the components of Islam that are not compatible with secular democracy need to be treated the same. The problem is that when most politicians/thinkers look to remove all culpability for the religion the racists who care more about a person's skin colour than ideas get all the oxygen. Ultimately this is the reason garbage like "OMG HE SAID ISLAMIC TERRORISM" gets traction with people.
The other problem is that critics of the religion tend to end up dead or needing 24/7 protection. A pretty powerful deterrent if ever there was one.
I really don't want my posts to come across as just laying this all at the door of Islam and I certainly wouldn't call the religion "evil". It desperately needs reform and won't get it in a world where one side denies there's a specific problem and the other is more interested in eradicating brown people.
Dude read your own post maybe? You come here and say that the problem is that people think x and y when you think z. If you don't want people down that angle, don't push that angle. The fact that you read my post as a dismissal of ideological problems, when I factually acknowledged the problems and then gave you my reasoning to focus on the other problems instead, also tells me that you have a preference concerning which factors you want addressed.
You also haven't even attempted to argue my core point, which is that those directions for the solution are antithetical to one another and as such can't be addressed at the same time.
Your entire post focused on the parts of my post that referenced Islam. Why would I not specifically address that? Your characterisation of criticism as "Islam is evil" is the exact kind of reductio ad absurdum hinders any capacity for a discussion on the issue.
And while we're talking about reading posts, how about you read mine?
Of course being critical of an ideology as distinct from its adherents is a challenge, but we navigate that "tightrope" all the time when addressing particular ideas.
I clearly don't think the problem you raised is one that has two antithetical solutions. Nor did I say it was one with an easy solution. I said in order for it to be possible the quality of public discourse needs to improve.
Any presentation of the two sets of solutions that are offered by "Focus on context" and "Focus on islam" that doesn't display them as antithetical to one another mischaracterizes at least one of the two sets, probably both.
On June 06 2017 20:09 Amarok wrote: There's no reason discussions have to be "Focus on context" vs "Focus on Islam". Completely false choice.
It's logically impossible that a policy with a focus on islam doesn't damage our focus on context, given that one of the core goals we have in our focus on context is to fight the narrative that we are engaged in a culture war.
On June 06 2017 20:09 Amarok wrote: There's no reason discussions have to be "Focus on context" vs "Focus on Islam". Completely false choice.
It's logically impossible that a policy with a focus on islam doesn't damage our focus on context, given that one of the core goals we have in our focus on context is to fight the narrative that we are engaged in a culture war.
That's only possible if you frame the narrative to be that criticism of Islam is the same as declaring war on Islam. That is a line of thinking with a huge number of problems.
On June 06 2017 20:09 Amarok wrote: There's no reason discussions have to be "Focus on context" vs "Focus on Islam". Completely false choice.
It's logically impossible that a policy with a focus on islam doesn't damage our focus on context, given that one of the core goals we have in our focus on context is to fight the narrative that we are engaged in a culture war.
That's only possible if you frame the narrative to be that criticism of Islam is the same as declaring war on Islam. That is a line of thinking with a huge number of problems.
Well given that we're discussing sets of solutions, it's going to be a state that does the "criticism". When states "criticize" things, it tends to be a little more damaging than when you criticize things in your conversations with me.
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
Not sure if serious
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
Not sure if serious
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^
More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
Not sure if serious
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^
More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either
His focus on Saudi Arabia's actions is a start and is not that different from some of what a_flayer wrote in his proposal.
That's Jeremy 'friends from Hezbollah' Corbyn you're talking about? There's not a single party in the UK I can vote for in good conscience. In any case these cultural issues transcend party politics completely.
On June 06 2017 19:43 bardtown wrote: Focus on context by necessity involves focusing on Islam.
I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
Not sure if serious
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^
More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either
His focus on Saudi Arabia is a start and is not that different from some of what a_flayer wrote in his proposal.
If your concern is nation security, Corbyn is the very last person anyone should support, he has voted against 17 anti terrorist laws, u know those laws that have helped foil constant terror attacks since 7/7 his voted against all of them.
This is a guy that has attended funerals of dead IRA members and have said the killing of Bin laden is a tradegy, rest of his policy's on terrorism are insane and well known. If people vote for him for the NHS, education and austerity, fair enough though.
Judging by where you stand politically though it doesn't surprise me you would support someone like that
What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously.
It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context.
It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls.
So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform?
Not sure if serious
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^
More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either
His focus on Saudi Arabia is a start and is not that different from some of what a_flayer wrote in his proposal.
If your concern is nation security, Corbyn is the very last person anyone should support, he has voted against 17 anti terrorist laws, u know those laws that have helped foil constant terror attacks since 7/7 his voted against all of them.
This is a guy that has attended funerals of dead IRA members and have said the killing of Bin laden is a tradegy, rest of his policy's on terrorism are insane and well known. If people vote for him for the NHS, education and austerity, fair enough though.
Judging by where you stand politically though it doesn't surprise me you would support someone like that
That sounds all very plausible, the dude who wants to become prime minister of the UK is actually a fan of terrorism and wants more terrorism against the UK. It also makes sense politically cause the more terrorism there is, the more people tend to vote left, that's a well known fact. There's no way that if I looked into it, I would find a bunch of things amplified by his political opposition to make voting for him scary.
But I mean given where I stand politically I probably want more terrorism as well, I guess.
Exactly the kind of strawman snark post i expected from you going by your post history, obviously out of your depth when it comes to these discussion but feel free to carry on arguing against a made up position.
On June 06 2017 21:42 Reaps wrote: Exactly the kind of strawman snark post i expected from you going by your post history, obviously out of your depth when it comes to these discussion but feel free to carry on arguing against a made up position.
All right, so it's a strawman to say that when people insist on Corbyn voting against anti-terrorist laws and being friends with Hezbollah and bin Laden, they're trying to paint him as pro-terrorist. So what is the real position that I'm strawmanning?
On June 06 2017 21:42 Reaps wrote: Exactly the kind of strawman snark post i expected from you going by your post history, obviously out of your depth when it comes to these discussion but feel free to carry on arguing against a made up position.
All right, so it's a strawman to say that when people insist on Corbyn voting against anti-terrorist laws and being friends with Hezbollah and bin Laden, they're trying to paint him as pro-terrorist. So what is the real position that I'm strawmanning?
Maybe the fact i never said he was friends with Bin Laden or the fact that voting against anti terrorist laws doesn't really mean your a "fan" of terrorism and just means you could possibly prioritise other things as i just mentioned
Not a single person has said he is pro terrorist, terrorist apologist though? Most definitely.
Like i said, either read posts properly or stop with strawmen, you do this all the time, and we are way off topic now, this is going nowhere.
On June 06 2017 21:42 Reaps wrote: Exactly the kind of strawman snark post i expected from you going by your post history, obviously out of your depth when it comes to these discussion but feel free to carry on arguing against a made up position.
All right, so it's a strawman to say that when people insist on Corbyn voting against anti-terrorist laws and being friends with Hezbollah and bin Laden, they're trying to paint him as pro-terrorist. So what is the real position that I'm strawmanning?
Maybe the fact i never said he was friends with Bin Laden or the fact that voting against anti terrorist laws doesn't really mean your a "fan" of terrorism and just means you could possibly prioritise other things like his political agenda.
Not a single person has said he is pro terrorist, terrorist apologist though? Most definitely.
Like i said, either read posts properly or stop with strawmen, you do this all the time, and we are way off topic now, this is going nowhere.
Voting against anti-terrorism laws does nothing to excuse terrorism. It's not something that you bring up when you're trying to paint him as a terrorist apologist. I don't think I'm strawmanning the general attack on Corbyn that you're relaying here, perhaps you don't agree with it exactly yourself but then you should be careful which points you bring up.
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
So, yes, they actually did side with terrorists against the British state. But rather than look it up, you threaten to look it up assuming you will find that it is all right wing propaganda.
On June 06 2017 21:59 bardtown wrote: His choice of Home Secretary:
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
So, yes, they actually did side with terrorists against the British state. But rather than look it up, you threaten to look it up assuming you will find that it is all right wing propaganda.
Would you say that coupling positions like these on IRA with what he said on Hezbollah, bin Laden, and his record on anti-terrorism laws is an attempt to paint him as pro-terrorist, or would you say that what I'm writing here is an ignorant strawman?
On June 06 2017 21:59 bardtown wrote: His choice of Home Secretary:
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
So, yes, they actually did side with terrorists against the British state. But rather than look it up, you threaten to look it up assuming you will find that it is all right wing propaganda.
Would you say that coupling positions like these on IRA with what he said on Hezbollah, bin Laden, and his record on anti-terrorism laws is an attempt to paint him as pro-terrorist, or would you say that what I'm writing here is an ignorant strawman?
Yeah, more or less. Pointing out somebody's atrocious record is not the same as calling them a 'fan of terrorism'. He made a legitimate point based on fact, you paraphrased him to try and make him look silly. You're in the wrong in that situation, clearly.
On June 06 2017 21:59 bardtown wrote: His choice of Home Secretary:
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
So, yes, they actually did side with terrorists against the British state. But rather than look it up, you threaten to look it up assuming you will find that it is all right wing propaganda.
Would you say that coupling positions like these on IRA with what he said on Hezbollah, bin Laden, and his record on anti-terrorism laws is an attempt to paint him as pro-terrorist, or would you say that what I'm writing here is an ignorant strawman?
Yeah, more or less. Pointing out somebody's atrocious record is not the same as calling them a 'fan of terrorism'. He made a legitimate point based on fact, you paraphrased him to try and make him look silly. You're in the wrong in that situation, clearly.
But what makes his record atrocious, in that reading, is his constant siding with and helping (in the sense of not signing those laws) terrorism, is it not?
Edit: Wrong thread - Not really sure either party really has it better. The Tories have gutted police over the last few years, only averting a strike because they can't.
May's solution seems to be internet censorship and I'm not really sure what else because to me she is so incapable of independent thought that I don't know enough about the people behind her collectively to judge how else she would act.
Abbott for sure is a retard, but they way Corbyn talks, he might actually do something about the things that have seen Police numbers fall (i.e. shit working conditions).
And being a terrorist apologist, the optimistic arguement for Corbyn is that at least he might have enough insight to reach out to Imans / Mosques and Islamic communities to encourage them to preach against radicalisation and also to not encourage UK Muslims to go and fight the UKs war in the Middle East where they will become much more exposed to radical Islam.
Holy sh**, new developments. One of the London killers was half italian and he was stopped in Bologna, which is like 30 km from where I live o.o This is a summary from Italian press:
- He was stopped at the airport and he had a backpack, his passport and a one-way ticket to Turkey. - Police took his phone and they found pro-ISIS videos - He said to a police officer 'I want to become a terrorist' and then immediately changed this declaration - When his mother was informed that he was stopped at the airport, she begged the police to not let him go, because 'lately he started to say strange things' - The police said he was not a risky person and let him go
But I guess Kwark can be happy - his rights were respected!
No article or evidence provided to back up claim. And calls out Kwark like it would somehow be his fault Italian security services dropped the ball. The bait is strong with this one.
On June 06 2017 22:46 ahswtini wrote: i genuinely fear if the race baiter abbott becomes home secretary.
If something would make me change my mind about voting Corbyn it would be this. But then its still better than the authoritarians that Theresa May has in her cabinet.
People might laugh at Corbyn's record, but Theresa May has overseen the biggest boost in arms sales to the funders of terrorism that we've ever seen. We are literally arming our enemy and people get in a flap because Corbyn used political language in a speech inviting peace talks with Hezbollah. I suppose if its what the Daily Mail says we should be outraged about, we should be outraged about it, right?
On June 07 2017 00:30 SoSexy wrote: Finally, maybe, we can agree then. I ask you: do you believe that, after the elements I reported, the guy should have been jailed or not?
Unless having videos on your phone is a crime in your country? If not, then he should not be jailed. Should he have been allowed to proceed to the UK? Nope. This is pretty clear cut. There is no evil politically correct cabal here, just human error.
Yes, the police definitely didn't have enough elements. It's very common for many honest people to have a one way ticket to Turkey, to have ISIS videos on the phone, to tell the police you are going to be a terrorist, to have your mother beg the police officers to not let you go. We should be careful because there is the risk of innocents going to jail over similar issues! This can happen to anyone!
On June 07 2017 00:52 SoSexy wrote: Yes, the police definitely didn't have enough elements. /s
He should have been stopped from travelling. If he broke a law he should have been jailed. I don't know Italian law. Also Italian security services should have been informed.
Italian police sucks a**. But they sent a report to the MI5 in April 2016 and the guy was still free roaming. There is the need of new laws for these specific issues.
On June 07 2017 00:58 SoSexy wrote: Italian police sucks a**. But they sent a report to the MI5 in April 2016 and the guy was still free roaming. There is the need of new laws for these specific issues.
And this begs to question: How did the Italian police obtain the information? Did they do anything that would "poison the well" for the evidence so MI5 couldn’t remove him from the country? How did they send it over? Was it sent in a mass of information or highlighted as a possible threat to UK security?
You claim MI5 dropped the ball. But Italian police could have just provided them with shit info that they couldn’t do anything with.
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
As someone who grew up in London, I can quite honestly say multiculturalism is a fail overall. Certainly worked from the perspective of the elite who profit and keep the status quo from poor people being divided. Multiculturalism has succeeded in their interests.
Of course rich people in Kensington and Hampstead don't have to worry about the ghettoized, unfriendly, overpriced dirty shithole most of London has turned into where most ethnic groups can just barely stand to be in the presence of each other. Nor do college/uni liberal protesters who grew up in Oxfordshire or some equally moist area and don't really know they are born yet.
On June 07 2017 00:30 SoSexy wrote: Finally, maybe, we can agree then. I ask you: do you believe that, after the elements I reported, the guy should have been jailed or not?
Not jailed. The story you just recounted didn't involve a criminal charge being filed, a court, a judge, a jury or a defence lawyer. You can't jail people without that shit.
So basically, they were on the radar. But no evidence found so they go down the list. Italy was involved but we're also unable to give enough evidence to land criminal conviction so I guess they're shit too. Doesn't change anything and you can't just jail people without evidence of a crime.
Probably because it is impossible to watch everyone who is suspicious forever all the time.
I think the most important thing in that telegraph article was the Muslim community refusing to do their funeral rites.
I think the only point you may get where we are coming from is if we Photoshop you praying to an ISIS flag, then report you, then get you jailed indefinitely without trial.
On June 07 2017 01:20 MoonfireSpam wrote: So basically, they were on the radar. But no evidence found so they go down the list. Italy was involved but we're also unable to give enough evidence to land criminal conviction so I guess they're shit too. Doesn't change anything and you can't just jail people without evidence of a crime.
Probably because it is impossible to watch everyone who is suspicious forever all the time.
I think the most important thing in that telegraph article was the Muslim community refusing to do their funeral rites.
I think the only point you may get where we are coming from is if we Photoshop you praying to an ISIS flag, then report you, then get you jailed indefinitely without trial.
Yes, it is seriously a serious threat. Photoshopping people praying to ISIS flags happen all the time, man. Wonder how many innocents would be imprisoned. SAD!
On June 07 2017 01:20 MoonfireSpam wrote: So basically, they were on the radar. But no evidence found so they go down the list. Italy was involved but we're also unable to give enough evidence to land criminal conviction so I guess they're shit too. Doesn't change anything and you can't just jail people without evidence of a crime.
Probably because it is impossible to watch everyone who is suspicious forever all the time.
I think the most important thing in that telegraph article was the Muslim community refusing to do their funeral rites.
I think the only point you may get where we are coming from is if we Photoshop you praying to an ISIS flag, then report you, then get you jailed indefinitely without trial.
Yes, it is seriously a serious threat. Photoshopping people praying to ISIS flags happen all the time, man. Wonder how many innocents would be imprisoned. SAD!
So you think showing support for ISIS should be a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment?
On June 07 2017 01:20 MoonfireSpam wrote: So basically, they were on the radar. But no evidence found so they go down the list. Italy was involved but we're also unable to give enough evidence to land criminal conviction so I guess they're shit too. Doesn't change anything and you can't just jail people without evidence of a crime.
Probably because it is impossible to watch everyone who is suspicious forever all the time.
I think the most important thing in that telegraph article was the Muslim community refusing to do their funeral rites.
I think the only point you may get where we are coming from is if we Photoshop you praying to an ISIS flag, then report you, then get you jailed indefinitely without trial.
Yes, it is seriously a serious threat. Photoshopping people praying to ISIS flags happen all the time, man. Wonder how many innocents would be imprisoned. SAD!
So you think showing support for ISIS should be a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment?
No, he thinks that although it isn't presently a crime they still should have been locked up.
That's the problem with what SoSexy is saying. He keeps saying "something should have been done" but he refuses to give us a concrete picture of what he wants done. Whether he wants to abolish trials for terror subjects, what new criminal charges he wants introduced etc.
That's all I'm getting from him too, he's implying indefinite jail for terror suspects which I think would require some re-writing of current law. Since I think several people have explained why short term jail makes the probem worse and that seems to have not gotten through.
Had a thought that if all the nutters get themselves dead from these low tech attacks, there should be a point where we run out of these people and if these attacks are the trend, more armed police especially at high value targets / events doesn't seem too unreasonable.
I think there has to be an acceptance that these attacks are by their nature near impossible to prevent.
On June 07 2017 02:04 MoonfireSpam wrote: That's all I'm getting from him too, he's implying indefinite jail for terror suspects which I think would require some re-writing of current law. Since I think several people have explained why short term jail makes the probem worse and that seems to have not gotten through.
Had a thought that if all the nutters get themselves dead from these low tech attacks, there should be a point where we run out of these people and if these attacks are the trend, more armed police especially at high value targets / events doesn't seem too unreasonable.
I think there has to be an acceptance that these attacks are by their nature near impossible to prevent.
Enormously difficult to prevent and only really impactful because of the hysteria that surrounds them.
17,201 accidental deaths in the U.K. in 2010. Sure, it's not really fair to directly compare causes of death like this, the damage done to society by a mass murder like this isn't identical to the damage done by a dozen people falling off ladders at different times in different places.... but still. In the last 15+ years less than 100 people have died due to a terrorist attack.
What do you think should be done about these people that are very likely to be radicalized? Should you de facto even do something about it? Do you violate at least one form of their citizen's rights because they are on your radar? Or is a bombing every so often the price we pay to let every person, even the people that are very likely to commit some kind of heinous act against your society, have the same right as anyone else and we just live with that fact?
On June 07 2017 02:51 Uldridge wrote: What do you think should be done about these people that are very likely to be radicalized? Should you de facto even do something about it? Do you violate at least one form of their citizen's rights because they are on your radar? Or is a bombing every so often the price we pay to let every person, even the people that are very likely to commit some kind of heinous act against your society, have the same right as anyone else and we just live with that fact?
As far as rights go, everyone has the same rights. It's a good question because it highlights the fundamental difference between, as far as I can tell, between the people I broadly agree with, and the people I don't. The people I tend to agree with recognise that equal rights for all is a fundamental plank of a functioning democracy. The people I tend to disagree boil down to a position of "we all know evil when we see it and evil doesn't get the same rights". At first glance it seems like a sensible thought, I mean, someone who wants to kill or have sex with children, everyone knows that's evil right, so why should we accord those people rights? Unfortunately one of the costs of taking this road is democracy...
At least until we invent the crystal ball.
However, that doesn't mean do nothing. Again, a bomb that kills 22 outside a concert for children is not the same as 22 people over a year dying because they choked on food. Again, short term we can and should look at making our police better at stopping these sorts of attacks. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime Gathering materiel to commit a crime is a crime. However driving a car while crazy is not.
Here's some perspective on kill counts. In 2014/5 there were 518 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) of which 54 were under 16 in the UK Source - Office of National Statistics . What's worse - 22 murdered teenagers, or one bombing every decade that kills 22?
What we also don't know, but I hope is released is the expenditure on anti-terrorism and the number of attacks prevented due to evidence being found and people charged.
I think in the cases of non-UK radicalised Muslims (burden of proof may be as light as evidence of support for ISIS) deportation could be considered.
For UK radicalised Muslims, can't deport them. They should all be throughly investigated and if no evidence is found to charge them, they should still remain under survelience (phone, electronic taps, internet use, purchases, travel and contacts) reviewed at a cost effective interval or if anything is flagged again.
Imans could be reached out to, and worked with to help watch these guys as well as prevent them from radicalising others.
The hysteria from the low tech attacks needs to be kept to a minimum, including the stuff from shit-tier newspapers that almost incites witch hunts.
Thoughts on censoring hate speech from the internet?
Thoughts on censoring hate speech from the internet?
An awful idea. I've been banned for some controversial facts time and time again. Literal facts because I oft put them in a blunt and ugly way. I think coming to a consensus as what constitutes hate speech is dangerous and censoring hate speech is beyond foolish.
Blunt and truthful speech is not hate speech. However it has become hate speech. If you measure something, report those measurements, and say what you see in a blunt manner you will be reprimanded.
These people are getting arrested on a near constant basis in the UK and France.
Censoring hate speech on the internet will do nothing, and is begging to be abused. It's nothing but a distraction so the government can pretend they are doing something. Even though people don't like it, Trump has basically got the right idea with 'extreme vetting', because once you let cultures into your free society, there is very little you can do to remove them while remaining a free society.
These people are getting arrested on a near constant basis in the UK and France.
Censoring hate speech on the internet will do nothing, and is begging to be abused. It's nothing but a distraction so the government can pretend they are doing something. Even though people don't like it, Trump has basically got the right idea with 'extreme vetting', because once you let cultures into your free society, there is very little you can do to remove them while remaining a free society.
I assume by cultures you mean Muslims although else wise controlled immigration makes some sense on other fronts.
I don't mean 'Muslims', but cultures where a literal interpretation of Islamic scripture informs politics, sure. Also cultures like those in some parts of Pakistan where child abuse is off the scale, broken states with no notion of the state and rule of law, etc.
Well, surely there is a middle-ground somewhere between human and citizen rights on one hand and to what extent we should be tolerating intolerance (in casu the most extreme manifestation of intolerance). Not that I can think of any fail-prof way to determine where that might be. Human nature is so annoyingly primitive ;(
On June 05 2017 23:32 Uldridge wrote: They speak Arabic (probably more so than English), they most probably identify more with a culture other than British culture. Send them to the land/area they most identify with.. Them being British is a poor flexibility of a nation's constitution. It's funny how integration is such a failed social undertaking, even after the 3rd generation of the initial immigrants settling in the home country. Multiculturalism is something I look at with optimism, but not without a healthy needed grain of skepticism. When does the sense of identification when the fear of alienation is upon you become radicalization? Either there's something inherently flawed in the social structure that's been set up so desperately (guilt and exploitation of post-colonialism), or it's inherently human to segregate (go back to your homogenous community you're most comfortable with). Either way, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. And people just aren't doing that (enough).
As someone who grew up in London, I can quite honestly say multiculturalism is a fail overall. Certainly worked from the perspective of the elite who profit and keep the status quo from poor people being divided. Multiculturalism has succeeded in their interests.
Of course rich people in Kensington and Hampstead don't have to worry about the ghettoized, unfriendly, overpriced dirty shithole most of London has turned into where most ethnic groups can just barely stand to be in the presence of each other. Nor do college/uni liberal protesters who grew up in Oxfordshire or some equally moist area and don't really know they are born yet.
As someone who is actually born, grew up and live in London, this is not a depiction of London I recognise. Other than overpriced. That at least is true.
As someone who grew up in the shires we had one brown guy in our year at school, a second gen Bangladeshi immigrant, who was about as middle class and British as anyone can be. And he was a flaming homosexual. Went on to study at UCL if I recall correctly. A++ citizen, would import more. Much better than the chavs.
On June 07 2017 05:41 HKTPZ wrote: Well, surely there is a middle-ground somewhere between human and citizen rights on one hand and to what extent we should be tolerating intolerance (in casu the most extreme manifestation of intolerance). Not that I can think of any fail-prof way to determine where that might be. Human nature is so annoyingly primitive ;(
It is a constant negotiation and discussion, weighing safety from harm against the fragile nature of civil liberties and human rights. All nations have been doing it since their inception. From the KKK or IRA to militant communist from the 1910s, every country and generation has this debate. Some do better than others.
This whole getting along with the rest of mankind thing is really fucking hard. It is only in the last 70 years of the western nations figured out how not to be gearing up for some war or another at all times.
On June 07 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote: It is only in the last 70 years of the western nations figured out how not to be gearing up for some war or another at all times.
On June 07 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote: It is only in the last 70 years of the western nations figured out how not to be gearing up for some war or another at all times.
Wat?
I fucked that one up. It is only in the last 70 years the western world has avoiding being at war or preparing for the next one. Most of the history of Europe is different nations, city states or kingdoms fighting each other over resources. Or to put it another way, it took a really long time for the US to get all the states kinda get along. The EU and its expanding members is more complex problem.
Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
Suppose frowning on Mosques would work. Turn them all against you, then shoot them when it looks like they're the bad guys, relatively PR way to carry out a religious cleansing.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
On June 07 2017 12:52 SK.Testie wrote: and generally don't accept an apocalyptic death cult into your midst.
The U.S. republican party is pretty crazy sure, but I'm not sure we can ban them from coming here.
You can laugh all you want at them, but they don't kill & sexually assault their own countrymen nearly as much as democrat/liberal voters.
really? I would seriously question that.
He's probably right, Democrat voters tend to be poorer than Republican voters. Although poverty doesn't lead to greater criminality it does act as an indicator of the types of crime that are likely to be committed. People in poverty tend to be involved in more violent crime than people with wealth. He's basically saying "poor people are scum"... Although it's possible he did the same analysis but went with "non-white" rather than "poor", so maybe he's saying "non-whites are scum".
You can get to either of these positions fairly easily by looking at how different demographics vote and sexual assault / murder statistics. It's a really innovative and clever sort of stupid idea. It pretends to be saying the unsayable in a rational sort of way by using statistics to arrive at the conclusion you were seeking and then utterly ignoring everything else. It's a great way to pretend to be challenging power and orthodoxy while serving both.
Implying that the poor are poor because they deserve it or that the darkie is a savage are very safe. Actually saying it clearly is less so. Questions like "What causes poverty?" and "Does the criminal justice system serve the poor and the wealthy equally?" -that is, seeking causes- can actually provide dangerous answers.
And just to be clear, my joke was about the republican party, not republican voters. People vote in their millions for all sorts of reasons. The republican party deny science, lie, defraud and start wars because... well maybe it's because they are "an apocalyptic death cult".
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
When Zaghba entered Britain, staff at passport control should automatically have been alerted by the Schengen system, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said."One unconfirmed report suggests that did happen, apparently when Zaghba arrived at Stansted Airport in January - but that border staff still let him in," he said. When asked if this was the case, Work and Pensions Secretary Damien Green, a former Home Office minister, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that if someone's passport comes up on the Schengen system the person should be stopped at the border. "I obviously don't know what happened in this case," he said."It would be wrong to comment on an individual case while there is a very serious continuing police investigation going on."
Pathetic last line. We fucked up but hey, they are investigating now.
What I fear is that there is a network of compliance for these individuals. It just takes a couple of people with the same ideology at the right point in the chain to have a closed eye on passports/luggage being loaded into airplanes/etc.
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
But she's specifically saying that this is about "not having enough evidence to prosecute them in court" - maybe someone from the UK can walk me through what I'm missing here.
ISIS is a terrorist organization and I assume the UK has some law in place that makes supporting them or spreading their propaganda already illegal and people can be prosecuted in court with that evidence. I'm also assuming the UK has some law against planning acts of terrorism.
So what kind of scenario is she talking about when she says "when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court"? People who don't plan to commit an act of terrorism, are not supporting ISIS, are not spreading their propaganda but... are doing what exactly that is not something you can prosecute but where you still want to restrict their freedom?
If it's not enough evidence to prosecute someone and bring them in front of a judge, how can it still be enough to take freedoms away?
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
Then you need to specify what is terrorism and what exactly is the scope of this control. You might end up with a law that takes measures agains terrorists "and everyone else connected or involved in some manner"(which is basically everyone).
This is one really slippery slope... Also, I'm really questioning May's sanity after that statement about human rights. Probably she said that, because of the elections, but still... Pretty insane.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
Ah you mean abused by individuals? Well you will always have that problem anywhere about anything no?
On June 07 2017 19:48 Reaps wrote: I'd probably trust the UK government with it if May sticks to her word and only uses it on terrorism with enough evidence.
Most likely not the US though, at least not the republicans, that shit is just asking to be abused by them.
This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
Then you need to specify what is terrorism and what exactly is the scope of this control. You might end up with a law that takes measures agains terrorists "and everyone else connected or involved in some manner"(which is basically everyone).
This is one really slippery slope... Also, I'm really questioning May's sanity after that statement about human rights. Probably she said that, because of the elections, but still... Pretty insane.
It's actually a really common desire amongst 'normal' folk that most students on this board never engage with. A significant number of Tories have favoured getting rid of the ECHR and replacing it with a British system for a long time.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 19:34 Plansix wrote: If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
If you're willing to give your government unlimited surveillance powers you actually need more than absolute faith that your government, and all future governments are incorruptible , you need absolute faith that the society you are living in is the best possible expression of a human society and that nothing that falls outside the bounds of the publicly acceptable now should be publicly acceptable. And maybe you're right, but it's a claim that's been being made by members of societies for thousands of years. Why were they wrong and you right?
Here's Glenn Greenwald making some good points about privacy:
It's clear that at least a few people in this thread have been "Harrised" and Sam really REALLY hates Glenn, so here are some quotes to give you an idea if -for whatever reason- you can't stand the guy so you stand a chance of engaging the arguments rather than the speaker. But if the subject interests you it's worth watching, he says a good deal more.
"[by taking the position that "good" people have nothing to hide are saying]I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and nonthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I am doing."
"When we're in a state when we can be monitored, when we can be watched, our behaviour changes dramatically, the range of behavioural options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce ... There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behaviour they engage in is vastly more conformist and complaint ... People when they are in state of being watched make decisions not that are the by product of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy."
"A society in which people can be monitored at all times, is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, from the most overt to the most subtle craves that system."
On June 07 2017 20:13 bardtown wrote: This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
I guess removing the privacy rights of terrorists and paedophiles is a bit better than removing the privacy rights of everyone. It's an argument that's moved from "My society is perfect" to "My society isn't perfect" which is good. However we're still left with the problems of corruptibility (again for the current government and all future governments) and the ever present problem of writing down new laws in such a way that injustices which do far more harm than the harm prevented don't happen.
-How exactly do we decide how someone becomes this new kind of citizen with an abridged right to privacy? -Is the process public? -Once you've been become a "terrorist-citizen" is it possible to go back to being a normal citizen ever? -Who gets to know that you're a "terrorist-citizen"? The government and the police I guess but what about employers or neighbours? -If we've got this great system of terrorists and paedophiles why not extend it to rapists? (Or to put it like the Sun might: "why do you love rapists so much?")
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
Certainly it's not great. But it's also not half of what the fascists in these topics have been calling for. A lot of it is just election rhetoric too I suspect, although May's record on civil liberties isn't good.
If you want people to take you seriously its probably best not to use words like "Harrised" suggesting that anyone that agrees with certain points on Sam is "indoctrinated" in some form.
That said Glenn does make good points, agree with a lot and its a slippery slope, but the sad truth is that many people that commit horrific crimes such as rape/child abuse and terrorism are being allowed to stay in the country, or if British born, having a very lenient jail time for the most part. The majority of the Rochdale child grooming gang are out of prison already.
If May's policy isn't the answer and i am not saying it is, we need something else.
if you want an idea of kwark's perception of values, he says that the people of england have about as much in common with the northern irish as they do with syrians.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 19:34 Plansix wrote: If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
If you're willing to give your government unlimited surveillance powers you actually need more than absolute faith that your government, and all future governments are incorruptible , you need absolute faith that the society you are living in is the best possible expression of a human society and that nothing that falls outside the bounds of the publicly acceptable now should be publicly acceptable. And maybe you're right, but it's a claim that's been being made by members of societies for thousands of years. Why were they wrong and you right?
Here's Glenn Greenwald making some good points about privacy:
It's clear that at least a few people in this thread have been "Harrised" and Sam really REALLY hates Glenn, so here are some quotes to give you an idea if -for whatever reason- you can't stand the guy so you stand a chance of engaging the arguments rather than the speaker. But if the subject interests you it's worth watching, he says a good deal more.
"[by taking the position that "good" people have nothing to hide are saying]I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and nonthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I am doing."
"When we're in a state when we can be monitored, when we can be watched, our behaviour changes dramatically, the range of behavioural options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce ... There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behaviour they engage in is vastly more conformist and complaint ... People when they are in state of being watched make decisions not that are the by product of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy."
"A society in which people can be monitored at all times, is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, from the most overt to the most subtle craves that system."
On June 07 2017 20:13 bardtown wrote: This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
I guess removing the privacy rights of terrorists and paedophiles is a bit better than removing the privacy rights of everyone. It's an argument that's moved from "My society is perfect" to "My society isn't perfect" which is good. However we're still left with the problems of corruptibility (again for the current government and all future governments) and the ever present problem of writing down new laws in such a way that injustices which do far more harm than the harm prevented don't happen.
-How exactly do we decide how someone becomes this new kind of citizen with an abridged right to privacy? -Is the process public? -Once you've been become a "terrorist-citizen" is it possible to go back to being a normal citizen ever? -Who gets to know that you're a "terrorist-citizen"? The government and the police I guess but what about employers or neighbours? -If we've got this great system of terrorists and paedophiles why not extend it to rapists? (Or to put it like the Sun might: "why do you love rapists so much?")
As per the draft in my head, it works like this: if you are part of a terrorism/child abuse investigation, you can be subject to otherwise illegal investigation. The evidence collected from said investigation can only be used for terrorism/child abuse charges. It's a stupid restriction, because you run the risk of discovering a drug lord, for example, and not being able to use the evidence. It seems to be a necessary restriction, however.
Also, as I understand it the purpose of our security services is essentially to break the law where threats to national security are perceived. That's what they are there for, and people tolerate it because MI5 are not going to waste their time pursuing someone for downloading films illegally or some other bullshit. This is a reality, and individuals should be taking measures to protect their privacy anyway.
On June 07 2017 21:45 ahswtini wrote: if you want an idea of kwark's perception of values, he says that the people of england have about as much in common with the northern irish as they do with syrians.
If I recall correctly I said something like that I felt no more kinship with the people of Northern Ireland than Syria and no less sense of obligation. Obviously I have the written word in common with the people of Northern Ireland, if not the spoken word.
On June 07 2017 10:03 a_flayer wrote: Guys, I have the answer to stopping terrorism. We not only need to control, censor and heavily surveil the internet, we also need to curb our human rights laws!
Then everything will be solved.
[Theresa May] said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
I never understand it but why should I care about these things as a person who follows the law to the letter? What do I care if I get monitored, I will never do anything wrong.
On June 07 2017 19:34 Plansix wrote: If you have absolutely faith in the government and law enforcement not to abuse that power, then you should be fine. Here in the US, some law enforcement used that monitoring to spy on ex girlfriends and others. They were caught after some time.
If you're willing to give your government unlimited surveillance powers you actually need more than absolute faith that your government, and all future governments are incorruptible , you need absolute faith that the society you are living in is the best possible expression of a human society and that nothing that falls outside the bounds of the publicly acceptable now should be publicly acceptable. And maybe you're right, but it's a claim that's been being made by members of societies for thousands of years. Why were they wrong and you right?
Here's Glenn Greenwald making some good points about privacy:
It's clear that at least a few people in this thread have been "Harrised" and Sam really REALLY hates Glenn, so here are some quotes to give you an idea if -for whatever reason- you can't stand the guy so you stand a chance of engaging the arguments rather than the speaker. But if the subject interests you it's worth watching, he says a good deal more.
"[by taking the position that "good" people have nothing to hide are saying]I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and nonthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I am doing."
"When we're in a state when we can be monitored, when we can be watched, our behaviour changes dramatically, the range of behavioural options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce ... There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behaviour they engage in is vastly more conformist and complaint ... People when they are in state of being watched make decisions not that are the by product of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy."
"A society in which people can be monitored at all times, is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, from the most overt to the most subtle craves that system."
On June 07 2017 20:13 bardtown wrote: This is the point. If they are going to introduce new powers like this they need to make it explicit that it will only be used for terrorism (and probably child abuse, too, because nobody objects to that). They need to write that into the law. Otherwise we'll end up with it being used for all sorts of petty shit.
I guess removing the privacy rights of terrorists and paedophiles is a bit better than removing the privacy rights of everyone. It's an argument that's moved from "My society is perfect" to "My society isn't perfect" which is good. However we're still left with the problems of corruptibility (again for the current government and all future governments) and the ever present problem of writing down new laws in such a way that injustices which do far more harm than the harm prevented don't happen.
-How exactly do we decide how someone becomes this new kind of citizen with an abridged right to privacy? -Is the process public? -Once you've been become a "terrorist-citizen" is it possible to go back to being a normal citizen ever? -Who gets to know that you're a "terrorist-citizen"? The government and the police I guess but what about employers or neighbours? -If we've got this great system of terrorists and paedophiles why not extend it to rapists? (Or to put it like the Sun might: "why do you love rapists so much?")
As per the draft in my head, it works like this: if you are part of a terrorism/child abuse investigation, you can be subject to otherwise illegal investigation. The evidence collected from said investigation can only be used for terrorism/child abuse charges. It's a stupid restriction, because you run the risk of discovering a drug lord, for example, and not being able to use the evidence. It seems to be a necessary restriction, however.
Also, as I understand it the purpose of our security services is essentially to break the law where threats to national security are perceived. That's what they are there for, and people tolerate it because MI5 are not going to waste their time pursuing someone for downloading films illegally or some other bullshit. This is a reality, and individuals should be taking measures to protect their privacy anyway.
We should probably set aside child abuse here because it seems a bit... arbitrary. It's not hard to put together a thought arguing that murder is worse than child abuse. The reasoning for throwing them in there seems to be "no one will fight for the rights of nonces" which ain't great.
What you've described here is roughly -as I understand it- how terrorism is dealt with, various special laws that give police and security services extra powers when investigating terrorism. Things like being able to detain people for longer than 48 hours without charge and secret courts. What powers, in the pursuit of terrorists, does the state not have currently that they should have?
I look at arguments like "it's justified to curb human rights laws because they're just going to use it to go after the terrorists" in a similar light as "they're not going to take away my health care, just the health care of people that are not me". It's naive to think that they're only going to take away other people's rights (or health care).
Glenn says we were all surprised at the scope of mass surveilance. Personally, I wasnt surprised at all - the technology was clearly already available for such "intrusion of privacy". Overall what he presents seems reasonably reasonable though.
I'm yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't try something like what a_flayer has offered. And I'd especially like to know why we should try giving rights away before we try something like that, cause what a_flayer said is a much lesser change to society.
On June 08 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote: I'm yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't try something like what a_flayer has offered. And I'd especially like to know why we should try giving rights away before we try something like that, cause what a_flayer said is a much lesser change to society.
Oil money. Power through influence.
That's why we're not doing that.
We can't give up the oil - not just yet anyway - and thus we can't give up the influence in the Middle East. The west saw what happened in the 70s, and the current status quo in the Middle East is preventing this from happening again.
Kinda have a feeling that current anti-terrorism efforts are not that undermined by the law, although the extent to which agencies can monitor an individual I was unable to quickly google, they can already seize passports, assets and limit communication among other things. This is why I have doubts that Mays tearing up of human rights is neither well meaning or going to be effective.
I suspect a bigger bottleneck to safety is numbers of police (armed or otherwise) on the ground and possibly resource allocation to MI5 and the like. All things considered, an armed police response time of ~8 minutes is amazing.
The tearing up of human rights is revenge for that time she forgot to employ good lawyers to help deport a terrorist and cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. She's been planning it since then and its her favourite populist policy to bring out but she never seems to manage to be able to do it.
On June 07 2017 21:37 Reaps wrote: If you want people to take you seriously its probably best not to use words like "Harrised" suggesting that anyone that agrees with certain points on Sam is "indoctrinated" in some form.
On June 08 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote: I'm yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't try something like what a_flayer has offered. And I'd especially like to know why we should try giving rights away before we try something like that, cause what a_flayer said is a much lesser change to society.
Oil money. Power through influence.
That's why we're not doing that.
We can't give up the oil - not just yet anyway - and thus we can't give up the influence in the Middle East. The west saw what happened in the 70s, and the current status quo in the Middle East is preventing this from happening again.
Not to mention controlling the oil prices is a good way to put pressure on Russia.
So our security is intimately connected with our foreign policy is intimately connected to our domestic energy policy.
I only point this out because it's an example of one of a myriad of connections which makes real change such an enormous task. If you're going to change the way a country works (and your country is going to change, radically, whether you like it or not. See: tech and the environment) any change in a single area is bound to fail. "leftist" (formerly centrist) positions are often presented as an incoherent wish list of hippy crap, when in actual fact they are -or should be- a coherent and pragmatic approach to governing in the interests of the many. Unfortunately "We need to invest in renewable energy to reduce terror" is a hard headline to sell when up against "Lock 'em up and throw away the key"... Although that might change with some media reform... and education reform... reducing working hours to give people more free time... etc. etc.
On June 07 2017 21:37 Reaps wrote: If you want people to take you seriously its probably best not to use words like "Harrised" suggesting that anyone that agrees with certain points on Sam is "indoctrinated" in some form.
On June 08 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote: I'm yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't try something like what a_flayer has offered. And I'd especially like to know why we should try giving rights away before we try something like that, cause what a_flayer said is a much lesser change to society.
Oil money. Power through influence.
That's why we're not doing that.
We can't give up the oil - not just yet anyway - and thus we can't give up the influence in the Middle East. The west saw what happened in the 70s, and the current status quo in the Middle East is preventing this from happening again.
Not to mention controlling the oil prices is a good way to put pressure on Russia.
So our security is intimately connected with our foreign policy is intimately connected to our domestic energy policy.
I only point this out because it's an example of one of a myriad of connections which makes real change such an enormous task. If you're going to change the way a country works (and your country is going to change, radically, whether you like it or not. See: tech and the environment) any change in a single area is bound to fail. "leftist" (formerly centrist) positions are often presented as an incoherent wish list of hippy crap, when in actual fact they are -or should be- a coherent and pragmatic approach to governing in the interests of the many. Unfortunately "We need to invest in renewable energy to reduce terror" is a hard headline to sell when up against "Lock 'em up and throw away the key"... Although that might change with some media reform... and education reform... reducing working hours to give people more free time... etc. etc.
Publicly being allowed to criticize Saudi Arabia in a political setting would help with that. But they practically yank the microphone out of your hand if you try that, apparently.
EPT
