http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41278545

Luckily, nobody was killed this time. Is it just me, or does that look like a paint bucket?

Yes, looked like that to me, too. Seems like it didn't create the blast its builder hoped for, though. No deaths so far according to BBC, mostly burn wounds (which, depending on degree of burns, is of course bad enough).

Seems like the panic-induced stampede resulted in some of the worst injuries. In that way, tubes are really a dangerous target for attacks like this.

That is lucky there were no fatalities.

Also great advertising for Lidl; "Our insulating bags are so effective they can contain most of the lethal blast of an IED."

Hopefully the death toll stays at zero.

Luckily it seems to not have gone off entirely. Still bad enough for the people that got hurt though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:
That is lucky there were no fatalities.

Also great advertising for Lidl; "Our insulating bags are so effective they can contain most of the lethal blast of an IED."

Hopefully the death toll stays at zero.

I have a newfound respect for my Lidl bag.

Oh look.

Terrorists being utterly incompetent. Again.

Little to see here folks. Move along.

I'm guessing...Neo Nazis.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh look.

Terrorists being utterly incompetent. Again.

Little to see here folks. Move along.

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm guessing...Neo Nazis.

Or you know, the islamic radicals.

A miracle no one was killed.

From the sound of it, this IED created more of a deflagration instead of a "real" explosion, with a much lower expansion of hot gas and less shockwave. Explains why there are mostly burns in the primarily IED-related injuries (without the trampling). I'd assume that whoever built this would've wanted it to go boom, and failed miserably in constructing this thing.

It's not clear whether that LIDL bag also contained something that could've been meant as additional shrapnel so far, right?

News is saying they found a timer and n bomb. Also saying doors were open at the time it went off, allowing people to run out instead of being trapped.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh look.

Terrorists being utterly incompetent. Again.

Little to see here folks. Move along.

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

7/7 bombings were also incompetent. Strike from nowhere, and didn't hit any major infrastructure. Not all the bombs detonated.

Precious little to be scared of here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the death penalty....so you want to help incompetent would-be martyrs achieve said martyrdom?

Have...have you actually thought that through? Like. At all?

Well we got to torture 'em first, make 'em work for it.

So it's looking like a suspect has been identified from CCTV and the "failure" of the device should hopefully yield information, DNA, etc. to help the investigation. Someone call Bond, James Bond...this smells of SPECTRE!

Kidding aside, thank God this wasn't as worse as it could have been.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
So it's looking like a suspect has been identified from CCTV and the "failure" of the device should hopefully yield information, DNA, etc. to help the investigation. Someone call Bond, James Bond...this smells of SPECTRE!

Kidding aside, thank God this wasn't as worse as it could have been.

Aye. Thankfully thr bomb maker made a bad batch or such and did not have the yeild ad power to detonate properly.

However if this person behind it turns out to be on a watch list again...

We have a fething huge problem that the security system had a big hole in it that needs patching ASAP.

Being on the watch list is a good thing no? It means the people on the watch list are people worth watching. If the only people who did crazy stuff weren't on any kind of list, wouldn't that be worse for our intelligence services?

Security Services have to be lucky all the time.

Terrorists, just the once.

Would also help if the Government didn't keep slashing Police budgets.

 Hollow wrote:
Being on the watch list is a good thing no? It means the people on the watch list are people worth watching. If the only people who did crazy stuff weren't on any kind of list, wouldn't that be worse for our intelligence services?

Yes, and no.

The fact they are noted is a good thing however if the still excute a attack then we need a serious look at our prevention systems in place to deal with those who are planning to kill people.

The list did not stop them trying or killing people.
The systems did not.

There needs to be a look at how. Why they got past and the breach sealed in the counter terror net.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

Indeed. I'm sure executions being bought back will deter a death cult that regards martyrdom as their highest achievement.

Elemental wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

Indeed. I'm sure executions being bought back will deter a death cult that regards martyrdom as their highest achievement.

You're behind the curve here, it's been upgraded to include torture.

NenkotaMoon wrote:Well we got to torture 'em first, make 'em work for it.

Go visit your mom and ask her for a hug. You clearly need one.

I don't believe GB has the death penalty. They have made Irish terrorists disappear in the past however.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Being on the watch list is a good thing no? It means the people on the watch list are people worth watching. If the only people who did crazy stuff weren't on any kind of list, wouldn't that be worse for our intelligence services?

Yes, and no.

The fact they are noted is a good thing however if the still excute a attack then we need a serious look at our prevention systems in place to deal with those who are planning to kill people.

The list did not stop them trying or killing people.
The systems did not.

There needs to be a look at how. Why they got past and the breach sealed in the counter terror net.

Keep in mind they could stop a hundred terrorist attacks before they happened and it wouldn't make the news, but if they get just one wrong...

 jhe90 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Being on the watch list is a good thing no? It means the people on the watch list are people worth watching. If the only people who did crazy stuff weren't on any kind of list, wouldn't that be worse for our intelligence services?

Yes, and no.

The fact they are noted is a good thing however if the still excute a attack then we need a serious look at our prevention systems in place to deal with those who are planning to kill people.

The list did not stop them trying or killing people.
The systems did not.

There needs to be a look at how. Why they got past and the breach sealed in the counter terror net.

Probably because it's impossible to track, record, analyze and act appropriately on everything anyone does without...inordinate resource devotion. Expecting security services to be able to do so is being a bit fantastical, particularly without granting them powers and resources far beyond what most nations are comfortable with.

One can attempt to catch as much stuff as possible, but no security agency is going to be able to prevent or stop every crime or terrorist act, particularly individual attacks, lists or no. It's one thing to catch onto a coordinated terror cell involving dozens of players in multiple nations with complex attack plans, thats going to have a multitude of vectors for failure and leaks, but some dude ordering a couple things off Amazon and making a trip to Home Depot to construct a bomb in his kitchen from otherwise innocuous stuff is...much harder to detect and stop, even if on a watch list.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh look.

Terrorists being utterly incompetent. Again.

Little to see here folks. Move along.

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

NenkotaMoon wrote:Well we got to torture 'em first, make 'em work for it.

Dakka's Guide on how to turn 1 attack into 20.

This would turn them into even greater martyrs for their 'cause' than if they had managed to kill themselves and would be more likely to push fringe radicals over the edge to commit further such acts.

What happens if the wrong person is convicted of these attacks? No amount of compensation money can make up for someone being wrongful killed. This is all even more likely once you bring torture into the equation. The best thing for those who commit tese acts is to be locked up and forgotten about.

*Shrugs*
We just don't kill 'em then. Leave 'em a shell of what they were, something fun, like make them watch Barney, all day, everyday.

 Elemental wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's just as well they were incompetent. We were bloody lucky to get away with that. Thank God nobody was killed, and let's hope the victims recover.

A lot of children got injured

It's a pity we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country...

Indeed. I'm sure executions being bought back will deter a death cult that regards martyrdom as their highest achievement.

Assuming you are correct, It's interesting that such attacks are no longer suicide attacks. A strategic change, or is it too difficult to find people who are sold on being martyrs?

Given the quality of the bomb it's possible it was intended as a suicide attack that went wrong.

BBC just reported an 18 year old man arrested at Dover in connection with this attack.

Parsons Green: Man arrested over Tube bombing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41292528

Trying to flee the country then. They must have had a lot more info than they're revealing if they picking him up at the port.

 welshhoppo wrote:
BBC just reported an 18 year old man arrested at Dover in connection with this attack.

Parsons Green: Man arrested over Tube bombing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41292528

They must of had a solid ID and known his rough direction so decided to maybe lay in wait and catch him on exit.

Tracked down with some patience and knowing he have to pass a control of leaving.

Yea, looked like they already had the web set up for him, kept security low to give him a false sense and sprung the bastard when he thought he was safe.

Turns out his house that they're currently searching is....surprisingly close to my own home. They're busy evacuating everyone. Wonder what they found in there to cause the ruckus.

No doubt another self proclaimed Aly-Ackbar. Arrogance, stupidity and cruelty, they should chain-gang such individuals and force them to do mine clearance, then see how desperate they are to see human maiming and death.

I think we're becoming desensitised to these attacks. The media try to play up the 'blitz spirit' but really no one is too bothered, we're not struggling on through rather just don't care, we went to the pub all got on trains and buses to go home.

Yup.

They're few and far between. And from what I see, typically lead to the arrest and charging of more people involved than were hurt. Certainly recently.

Tossers are losing the numbers game.

Now if we could just deal with the rampant scaremongering and islamophobia in the gutter press, we can easily get a lid on this,

 Ketara wrote:
Turns out his house that they're currently searching is....surprisingly close to my own home. They're busy evacuating everyone. Wonder what they found in there to cause the ruckus.

Explosives or precursors and materials, if someone's making a bomb there gonna be dangerous stuff in the home left over from manufacturer.

Daily Mail says that he's a refugee...woah boy, thats a can o' worms alright.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Daily Mail says that he's a refugee...woah boy, thats a can o' worms alright.

Daily mail writers suddenly where possessed and began typing with vigour no mortal should have when they found that news out.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Daily Mail says that he's a refugee...woah boy, thats a can o' worms alright.

Assuming that it's true, which is a big assumption where that particular 'news' paper is concerned.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think we're becoming desensitised to these attacks. The media try to play up the 'blitz spirit' but really no one is too bothered, we're not struggling on through rather just don't care, we went to the pub all got on trains and buses to go home.

In a way that is a good thing, because the terrorists plan to create terror failed.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think we're becoming desensitised to these attacks. The media try to play up the 'blitz spirit' but really no one is too bothered, we're not struggling on through rather just don't care, we went to the pub all got on trains and buses to go home.

In a way that is a good thing, because the terrorists plan to create terror failed.

Or a bad thing we used to it. They keep happening. And I'm bloody sick of it.

We should be safe to go to London, Manchester with out fear of being killed by degenerate, murderous scumbags.

This bomber was a bad bomb maker. We will not be so lucky next time.

Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Maybe we should stick this ass holes head on a spike over traitors gate as a warning to others. If they insist on fighting for people who want to drag us back to centuries past. Maybe they understand that message.

Evidently there were attacks in France and bergundy at the same time.

We make their lives a living Hell. Deny them their martyrdom and beat them, beat them and beat them some more. Piss on their corpse when their done. And do whatever terribly politically incorrect thing to the body depending.

Other than that I don't know. Hard to stop folk whom don't care. Lot of folk taking advantage of the refugee stuff and while I do care for the kids and mothers, there be lots of young men coming across whom ain't tryin' to change things back home.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
We make their lives a living Hell. Deny them their martyrdom and beat them, beat them and beat them some more. Piss on their corpse when their done. And do whatever terribly politically incorrect thing to the body depending.

Other than that I don't know. Hard to stop folk whom don't care. Lot of folk taking advantage of the refugee stuff and while I do care for the kids and mothers, there be lots of young men coming across whom ain't tryin' to change things back home.

And therein lies the problem. All the military-age males coming across with the women and children. They should be staying home and doing something about fixing their country instead of running off to another one. These military-age males are the ones that get radicalized and become terrorists. Really the European countries should start throwing some of those refugees back before more of these attacks come, but it's probably far too late for that. That genie has long since escaped the bottle.

As for punishing the people who perpetrate these attacks, I'm not sure what the answer is. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, you can't just kill them because it'll make martyrs out of them (and these guys don't value their own lives anyway). Imprisoning them just puts more burden on the prison system, to say nothing about how their fellow inmates might treat them (not that they don't deserve whatever happens to them). Torture is out of the question for obvious reasons, and we can't simply let them go or just deport them because they'll cause more mischief later. Maybe execution could be a viable answer if the trials and everything were done with absolutely no media coverage. That could reduce the impact of martyrdom, as fewer of their fellows would know about what happened to them.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Maybe execution could be a viable answer if the trials and everything were done with absolutely no media coverage. That could reduce the impact of martyrdom, as fewer of their fellows would know about what happened to them.

Don't forget that, for that idea to be effective, it needs to be a thoughtcrime to speak the name of an unperson as well.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And therein lies the problem. All the military-age males coming across with the women and children. They should be staying home and doing something about fixing their country instead of running off to another one. These military-age males are the ones that get radicalized and become terrorists. Really the European countries should start throwing some of those refugees back before more of these attacks come, but it's probably far too late for that. That genie has long since escaped the bottle.

{citation needed}

Women and children have made terrorist attacks, and only a tiny minority of "military age males" will even come close to committing an act of terrorism. And it's ridiculous to suggest that "military age males" should just stay behind while their families leave, of course they're going to want to leave too.

Maybe execution could be a viable answer if the trials and everything were done with absolutely no media coverage. That could reduce the impact of martyrdom, as fewer of their fellows would know about what happened to them.

Ah yes, because "secret police and disappearing people in the middle of the night" is definitely a thing we want to have...

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
We make their lives a living Hell. Deny them their martyrdom and beat them, beat them and beat them some more. Piss on their corpse when their done. And do whatever terribly politically incorrect thing to the body depending.

Other than that I don't know. Hard to stop folk whom don't care. Lot of folk taking advantage of the refugee stuff and while I do care for the kids and mothers, there be lots of young men coming across whom ain't tryin' to change things back home.

And therein lies the problem. All the military-age males coming across with the women and children. They should be staying home and doing something about fixing their country instead of running off to another one. These military-age males are the ones that get radicalized and become terrorists. Really the European countries should start throwing some of those refugees back before more of these attacks come, but it's probably far too late for that. That genie has long since escaped the bottle.

There are many who do try to change things at home. They are called White Helmets. Their job is incredibly dangerous. Not every person can be a White Helmet, nor does every person have the desire or the training. Many have families they wish to save from the strife of war. So they leave, instead of staying. Instead of picking a side.

I don't think you understand, many of these people have three options. Fight for this side, fight for that side, or run for your life.

Also, are you really suggesting that we accept female and child refugees and send back males to fight? Are you fething serious? Do you want to get terrorists, because that is how you get terrorists. Just take their women and kick the men out. BRILLIANT!

I dunno about you guys, but if a fundamentalist death cult took over my[/] country, me and my absolute lack of military training would [i]love to hang out and go Red Dawn on them. Oh, sure, I'd probably be brutally executed, but it's way better than trying to help my family adjust to a foreign country, or simply trying to escape so I don't get used as target practice by my neighbors after they get conscripted (so they don't get used as target practice themselves).

But hot damn, if I did get driven out by psychotic sex-slaving mass-murderers, you can bet the first thing I'd do is get radicalized by them.

If he was 18 he probably could have came here as a child refugee.

Hell, for all you know, he might have wanted to stay and fight in his home country, but instead was dragged here. Perhaps he was radicalised exactly because of his desire to 'do something' and it being denied to him.

I can't say.

Poland is getting in trouble for not accepting any refugees. Merkel is spearheading that stuff, wanting the EU to sue them. Poland then demands reparations for WW2 that exceed several billions.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Poland is getting in trouble for not accepting any refugees. Merkel is spearheading that stuff, wanting the EU to sue them. Poland then demands reparations for WW2 that exceed several billions.

It's not really very closely linked to the thread topic, but in short: I think the legal findings and court decisions have been rehashed a few times over the last decades, with usually more fringe parties demanding additional reparations, only now it's the main government. So far, if the headlines here in Germany can be trusted, the German government is pretty firm on their position that Poland declined additional reparations at three different occasions in the second half of the 20th century, so they're not going to suddenly cave in, I think.

And while Merkel is spearheading this, I am very sure a row of other EU countries certainly back this. Poland not playing by the EU rules it agreed to, while roughly getting 10 billion Euro more out of the EU than it pays into it (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/default_en.html#poland), is something that would obviously set a precedent, if completely unchecked.

Poland seems to be celebrated and lauded for refusing more refugees by corners of the internet where I wouldn't have thought it possible, and I don't mean dakka.

 jhe90 wrote:


Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Is this going to be like that one time you wanted concentration camps for all Muslims? Because I think we all remember how well that thread turned out.

I think that Poland is just a little sore still about the last time Germany put a bunch of unwanted foreigners in their country roughly a century ago.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Is this going to be like that one time you wanted concentration camps for all Muslims? Because I think we all remember how well that thread turned out.

If we continue doing nothing or being ineffective towards this threat the scenario you described can really happen. And no one wants a totalitarian system once again. Muslims are not different from jews or christians, these religions are all the same. People with traditions that belong to societies that have nothing in common with democracies are the issue. Remove them and the problem would be solved or at least very limited. Many people that were normal dudes for their entire life become fanatics because in the name of political correctness governments do nothing or very little against hate preachers of any kind, they're too lenient towards subjects that are known to be radical and do nothing against american companies like facebook and (especially) youtube that actually help terrorism by not closing/censoring the propaganda some fondamentalists post online every day. Some videos remain online for years, they wouldn't be shut down even after segnalations.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3185533/isis-floods-youtube-with-sick-propaganda-praising-westminster-terror-attacker/

Now these companies are trying to sell their fake effort to counter the issue, but in the reality they still do nothing to shut down those videos.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/20/youtube-redirects-isis-recruitment-searches-anti-terrorist-videos/497392001/

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Is this going to be like that one time you wanted concentration camps for all Muslims? Because I think we all remember how well that thread turned out.

If we continue doing nothing or being ineffective towards this threat the scenario you described can really happen. And no one wants a totalitarian system once again. Muslims are not different from jews or christians, these religions are all the same. People with traditions that belong to societies that have nothing in common with democracies are the issue. Remove them and the problem would be solved or at least very limited. Many people that were normal dudes for their entire life become fanatics because in the name of political correctness governments do nothing or very little against hate preachers of any kind, they're too lenient towards subjects that are known to be radical and do nothing against american companies like facebook and (especially) youtube that actually help terrorism by not closing/censoring the propaganda some fondamentalists post online every day. Some videos remain online for years, they wouldn't be shut down even after segnalations.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3185533/isis-floods-youtube-with-sick-propaganda-praising-westminster-terror-attacker/

Now these companies are trying to sell their fake effort to counter the issue, but in the reality they still do nothing to shut down those videos.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/20/youtube-redirects-isis-recruitment-searches-anti-terrorist-videos/497392001/

Well firstly shut down known extremist Imans and Mosques if necessary to be closed by counter terror laws.. No more being all hung up on there right to preach extremeSharia and all that. if foreign and preaching terror deported. a few have had more than one linked to attacks and should be dealt wiith. Deal with the enemy inside the walls spreading the cancer. also trying to break up toxic blocks and remove support networks.

Same with a heavy clamp down on foreign funding and potential ban on foreign funding of mosque construction from those known extremist nations or those found to be complicit in it. No more influence or support for enemy as best be had.,

Funding to be clamped down upon, and legal forc used to arrest those knowing doing so. also deportation to those foreign residents involved in said funding. Destroy infrastructure and systems they used for logistics.
"Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, said the “most common source of support for Islamist extremist organisations in the UK is from small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals”. "


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-islamist-funding-extremist-organisations-home-office-amber-rudd-uk-isis-terrorism-a7837451.html

Means to be used to disrupt both the spread of the cancer of extermisisam , its finances and its backers both internal and external.

and yes you will not like this idea. you might block me or call me all kind of bigot or whatever but unless there is a conchous and distict effort to break up the enemy forces, to break up there abality to spread there cancer we will not stop them.

Also , yes efforts to tigten the ability to remove content online lineked to extremists, video, preaching, terror manuals, and dark web etc using GCHQ and others to mount a counter cyber warfare campaign to both remove exiting content and take offensive action against those who found to be supporting it, identify supporters, groomers and others, working with allies to arrest or kill those involved.

only a small part of a wider stratagy but one arm would be to defund. limit the spread of ideas and also proactively target its groomers abroard , and those who are involved in the conversion process with objective to disrupt in the least, or avctively shut down there ability to exacute attacks.

If the attacks keep happeneing, and nothign is done then yes you might see a gorwing call to start using darker tactics, internment and such against known extremists.

 jhe90 wrote:
Well firstly shut down known extremist Imans and Mosques if necessary to be closed by counter terror laws.. No more being all hung up on there right to preach extremeSharia and all that.

Now please define "extreme Sharia", and do so in a way that can be used to clearly separate the terrorists from people who are merely committing the thoughtcrime of advocating a political position you disagree with. Make sure that your definition can be used to give an indisputable verdict in court, and can't be used to oppress any legitimate political position (Extreme socialism! Extreme Jesus!). It's very easy to talk about how nice it would be to ban the extremists, but it's much more difficult to turn that into a policy that isn't just "ban all Muslims".

 Peregrine wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Well firstly shut down known extremist Imans and Mosques if necessary to be closed by counter terror laws.. No more being all hung up on there right to preach extremeSharia and all that.

Now please define "extreme Sharia", and do so in a way that can be used to clearly separate the terrorists from people who are merely committing the thoughtcrime of advocating a political position you disagree with. Make sure that your definition can be used to give an indisputable verdict in court, and can't be used to oppress any legitimate political position (Extreme socialism! Extreme Jesus!). It's very easy to talk about how nice it would be to ban the extremists, but it's much more difficult to turn that into a policy that isn't just "ban all Muslims".

Extreme as in the throw gays off roof. Stone people, kill infidels, those who are demanding the implementation of extreme sharia as law of the land, compulsory burkha and the stripping of rights of women. The line is roughly about that mark.

General Islamic state policy, taliban stuff.those advocating war on the west. Supporting bombers and calling them heros etc.

Any preaching that kind of thing are up to no good and should be dealt with. Deal with the cancer with in the walls and purge it.

 jhe90 wrote:
Extreme as in the throw gays off roof. Stone people, kill infidels, those who are demanding the implementation of extreme sharia as law of the land, compulsory burkha and the stripping of rights of women. The line is roughly about that mark.

General Islamic state policy, taliban stuff.those advocating war on the west. Supporting bombers and calling them heros etc.

Any preaching that kind of thing are up to no good and should be dealt with. Deal with the cancer with in the walls and purge it.

That's not a viable definition. "General Islamic state policy" is not something that can be used in court because it's way too broad, and covers a wide range of thoughtcrime beliefs that should not be criminalized. "Stripping of rights of women" is hopelessly vague, and would apply to plenty of mainstream politicians in the US. Etc. It's very clear that your definition of who should be "dealt with" is little more than "I don't like these people, let me have the power to deport anyone I dislike". And I think it should be obvious why this is not an acceptable option.

Poland should invade Germany, and steel all their dessert cakes, for freedom!

 Peregrine wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Extreme as in the throw gays off roof. Stone people, kill infidels, those who are demanding the implementation of extreme sharia as law of the land, compulsory burkha and the stripping of rights of women. The line is roughly about that mark.

General Islamic state policy, taliban stuff.those advocating war on the west. Supporting bombers and calling them heros etc.

Any preaching that kind of thing are up to no good and should be dealt with. Deal with the cancer with in the walls and purge it.

That's not a viable definition. "General Islamic state policy" is not something that can be used in court because it's way too broad, and covers a wide range of thoughtcrime beliefs that should not be criminalized. "Stripping of rights of women" is hopelessly vague, and would apply to plenty of mainstream politicians in the US. Etc. It's very clear that your definition of who should be "dealt with" is little more than "I don't like these people, let me have the power to deport anyone I dislike". And I think it should be obvious why this is not an acceptable option.

So calling for beheading. Enslaving, rape and terror attacks on the west is a legal thing for you? Treating infidels as slaves?

That is there general policy. They throw gays off roof, impose brutal law and cut limbs off people. They have raised ainciant monuments to the ground.

They are a evil that should not be tolerated and purged from the world.

You wanna defend those gak holes?

 jhe90 wrote:
So calling for beheading. Enslaving, rape and terror attacks on the west is a legal thing for you?

That would be illegal, but is covered just fine by existing laws on inciting violence and/or conspiracy to commit violence.

Treating infidels as slaves?

Define "treating infidels as slaves", in a way that is a viable legal definition and not just "I don't like this thing".

They throw gays off roof, impose brutal law and cut limbs off people.

Murder and cutting off limbs is already illegal.

They have raised ainciant monuments to the ground.

So have lots of other governments. You'll have a lot of US politicians to throw in jail and/or deport if you want to make this illegal. And let's not forget that they aren't doing this in the UK, they're doing it in other countries. Being associated with someone who doesn't treat their property according to the standards you demand is not a crime.

You wanna defend those gak holes?

No, I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that you can't come up with a viable definition for "those gak holes" that catches the guilty people without punishing anyone for thoughtcrime and without being a completely arbitrary "I don't like you, I deport you" system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
So calling for beheading. Enslaving, rape and terror attacks on the west is a legal thing for you?

That would be illegal, but is covered just fine by existing laws on inciting violence and/or conspiracy to commit violence.

Treating infidels as slaves?

Define "treating infidels as slaves", in a way that is a viable legal definition and not just "I don't like this thing".

They throw gays off roof, impose brutal law and cut limbs off people.

Murder and cutting off limbs is already illegal.

They have raised ainciant monuments to the ground.

So have lots of other governments. You'll have a lot of US politicians to throw in jail and/or deport if you want to make this illegal. And let's not forget that they aren't doing this in the UK, they're doing it in other countries. Being associated with someone who doesn't treat their property according to the standards you demand is not a crime.

You wanna defend those gak holes?

No, I'm simply pointing out the obvious: that you can't come up with a viable definition for "those gak holes" that catches the guilty people without punishing anyone for thoughtcrime and without being a completely arbitrary "I don't like you, I deport you" system.

Covered but thr likes of chaudry and others got away with it for too long, it needs to be quicker and dealt with more decisively.

If they are a hate preacher they need sopping now. Not 6 months later. Damage done. Poison is spread and out there with potential to kill.

Define slaves.
Well the yazzidi people come to mind. Raped, or genocide was there fate. Sold as slaves for mens amusement....

Others too suffered so.

Thr men where killed on mass
That's is slavery and war crime.

Or the forced conversion to Islam or promoting thr idea.thats covered under infidels and forcing them against there will.

Don't be focused on definitions. There will always be someone that decides if you are dangerous or not. Not an algoritm, not a statement, but the judgement of some people.

Think about any possible crime, at a trial a jury or a judge can have completely different opinions about a specific case, and the result can be the opposite even with the same evidence.

Determining if someone is not compatible with a civilized world will always be matter of personal judgement. Of course there would be laws, definitions and guidelines but at the end of the day it's ALWAYS a personal decision when it comes to take action on a criminal matter.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think we're becoming desensitised to these attacks. The media try to play up the 'blitz spirit' but really no one is too bothered, we're not struggling on through rather just don't care, we went to the pub all got on trains and buses to go home.

In a way that is a good thing, because the terrorists plan to create terror failed.

Or a bad thing we used to it. They keep happening. And I'm bloody sick of it.

We should be safe to go to London, Manchester with out fear of being killed by degenerate, murderous scumbags.

This bomber was a bad bomb maker. We will not be so lucky next time.

Somthing needs to change and fething fast. This wave of terror across Europe, it needs to end. Whatever it takes it needs to end.

Maybe we should stick this ass holes head on a spike over traitors gate as a warning to others. If they insist on fighting for people who want to drag us back to centuries past. Maybe they understand that message.

Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

It did. Foreign jihadidts are now deported back to country of origin, same with terror propagators and jihad preachers.
Do a serious crime in UK and its ground to lose your visa etc.
You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

Should slim the numbers down by a few thousand.

I'm on board with deporting Foreign criminals. And other countries should do the same and deport British expat criminals back to the UK.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

What I suggest would prevent a lot of them, I think. No laws can wipe out completely crimes like murder, rape, etc... and no possible laws can wipe out completely the religious fanatism. But we can limit it to a point in which we can consider the problem solved.

Our governments are doing almost nothing at the moment, they only act when the threat becomes immiment. We should act before. As I said most of the terrorists that carried attacks in europe were known to the intelligence, as well as their preachers. Deport people that are not entitled to stay using the force if necessary, ban/lock people at the first sight of radicalism, that's the answer. Strip their european nationality if they're not foreigners.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Okay dokay so what you are saying needs to be done:

a) Increase massively funds for police. Likely requires ditching some serious public spendings like healthcare, pensions etc
b) have guards at practically every corner going through people's possessions. Imagine how slow getting around goes. Obviously same thing for cars. Every car inspected periodically.
c) Immediate surveilance of every single phone, internet connection etc. Forget privacy. Everything you do over internet/phone would be read/listened by somebody unless you crypt it in a way they can't(and btw bombers would be doing this as well as possible obviously)

That's for starters. Likely some more. You REALLY want to go there? North Korea would look like liberal democracy in comparison.

Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

Good job. You just didn't do anything then to really stop them. Nutters still can make their explosives and put it somewhere. Or rent a car and drive in.

Sure you might prevent SOME of them but question wasn't about stopping some of them(of which cops are already doing) but ALL of them. What you suggest wouldn't prevent all of them.

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

What I suggest would prevent a lot of them, I think. No laws can wipe out completely crimes like murder, rape, etc... and no possible laws can wipe out completely the religious fanatism. But we can limit it to a point in which we can consider the problem solved.

Our governments are doing almost nothing at the moment, they only act when the threat becomes immiment. We should act before. As I said most of the terrorists that carried attacks in europe were known to the intelligence, as well as their preachers. Deport people that are not entitled to stay using the force if necessary, ban/lock people at the first sight of radicalism, that's the answer. Strip their european nationality if they're not foreigners.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

You fine if you obey the laws of the land.

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

More extreme than me!
I was working on outward signs of radicalisation and a phase later as such preachers, campaigners or active supporters of terror or its groups. Also actively targeting those places such as known extremist mosque and preachers to prevent some of spread of there evil poison.

Easier to identify and prove than just being a radicalised.

However it should be a rule that those who do join groups such as Islamic state, fight for them and return are never welcome home again. Exiled in ll but name and if return will be locked in jail for the rest of there natural lives.

Make it very clear. If they wanna go out there they know the price of doing so.

Targeting the recruiters aboard, and such with cyber warfare would also try to reduce some of the numbers. And intel gained can be passed on to local forces to deal with the person or group in question.

JFC. "Deport anyone we disagree with" is an idea so obviously flawed that I can't believe that multiple people are, apparently 100% sincerely, suggesting it as a viable plan.

For what is probably the umpteenth time, how do you deport someone who doesn't have somewhere to get deported to? You can't make people stateless, and even if they have citizenship somewhere else what do you do when that somewhere else doesn't want them back?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
For what is probably the umpteenth time, how do you deport someone who doesn't have somewhere to get deported to? You can't make people stateless, and even if they have citizenship somewhere else what do you do when that somewhere else doesn't want them back?

If states Don t want em back there obviously a bad egg and we where right to want to Deport then. They can be held in a remote penal facility until a suitable nation or arrangement can be made for there deportation such as the Saudi extremist rehabilitation centre.

If someone joins Islamic state or similar group as a soldier. They are hear by kept as citizens but informed they will have a lifetime in jail for there crimes and treason fighting for enemy of the united kingdom.

They are welcome to choose to live in some gak hole Somalia or wherever or return and live rest of days behind bars.

They merely lose there freedom not citizenship.

Fighting for a orgonisation whose aim is to destroy your own nation merely now becomes a form of lesser treason subject to life in prison.

Higher treason remains the unused death penalty charge.

 Blackie wrote:

First of all, prevent ONE terror attack is still huge and way better than prevent none. We're talking about human lives.

Why? Beyond the high profile media fapping about this stuff, it's a total non issue. Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part (hyped up to sell papers). Likely more people were harmed in London because of the delayed 999 response after the attack, than in the attack.

If you're talking about human lives; why waste so much effort on something with such an insignificant affect? Why not focus on something like road accidents or gang crime, and clamp down on media sensationalism?

For instance, 30 people in the UK were killed by terrorists in the last few years. In 2015, 30,000 deaths were directly attributed to austerity related cuts. Which one gets the attention? The one that sells frothers a couple of papers.


Before I get pounced on for being a terrorist sympathiser - terrorism is awful, but (a) it's not really any more awful than an accidental rail crash, for instance, and (b) terrorism only happens because we react exactly how we want them to and fuel more of it (via the inevitable racist attacks, overreact, and media storm that follows). I'd much rather we dropped the terrorist label and treat it as a one-off crime "man denotates bomb on tube" rather than "terrorist attack on tube", or just ignored/downplayed the whole thing, and thus show the terrorists that we're better than that.

We can obviously still use intelligence services and the legal framework to identify and process criminals as they come up, but they should be treated as criminals and not terrorists, because we're not afraid of them.

 jhe90 wrote:
If states Don t want em back there obviously a bad egg and we where right to want to Deport then. They can be held in a remote penal facility until a suitable nation or arrangement can be made for there deportation such as the Saudi extremist rehabilitation centre.

Ah yes, indefinitely throwing people in prison without a trial just because we've declared them a "bad egg" is such a great idea. Never mind the fact that people can be unwelcome in the country you want to deport them to for other reasons...

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

It absolutely is "pretty much no one". Put those numbers into perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/?utm_term=.e21b6d0e3e72

What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

3551 people in 7 nations on 3 continents and over 16 years, with the overwhelmingly vast majority (almost 5/6ths, 83%) coming from a single incident. Even if we add in a few more from smaller or forgotten attacks, from a statistical viewpoint, looking at death rates and meaningful contributors to it, that fully qualifies as "pretty much no one". More people drowned to death in the 2005-2014 ten year time period in the US alone in non-boating related incidents. The US had about five times as many deaths from homicide alone in 2015, and about a quarter million total homicides over the 2001-2017 time period.

This is not to take away anything from these people's deaths, but looking the size of the populations involved here, the time period, and geographic spread, your bathroom is more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

I'm more bothered by other practices like FGM that put tens of thousands at risk (I think about 20,000 girls are 'at risk' in the UK every year and 6000 have it carried out) than I am by terrorism. I travel on trains every day in London and I'm more concerned by the former.

'Extreme' meaning exclusively terrorism is a very small minority, but tens of thousands suffer as a result of extreme barbaric practices like FGM that have absolutely no place in British society, and almost nothing gets prosecuted because families and communities close ranks.

That's the real problem where there's a failure to integrate into British values - the tiny minority of people who want to bomb us is neither here nor there because they don't represent the views of a large number of people. But if you find FGM intolerable, then you do take issue with the firmly shared belief of thousands of families in the UK.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm more bothered by other practices like FGM that put tens of thousands at risk (I think about 20,000 girls are 'at risk' in the UK every year and 6000 have it carried out) than I am by terrorism. I travel on trains every day in London and I'm more concerned by the former.

'Extreme' meaning exclusively terrorism is a very small minority, but tens of thousands suffer as a result of extreme barbaric practices like FGM that have absolutely no place in British society, and almost nothing gets prosecuted because families and communities close ranks.

That's the real problem where there's a failure to integrate into British values - the tiny minority of people who want to bomb us is neither here nor there because they don't represent the views of a large number of people. But if you find FGM intolerable, then you do take issue with the firmly shared belief of thousands of families in the UK.

Thats a bad issue but one thats more difficult to penetrate,
sheer brute force merely bounces off the closed ranks as all the doors close around you and no one will say anything against anyone or create a crack to start a workable breach.

to truely tackle that issue requires a softer power, to get talking into the comunity, build trust and such.
legal means have a place if you catch say the ones cutting... they are a target. but unlike other extremists whom using more agressive tactics and police lead operations. This requires a lighter touch. FIrm, and backed by legal force when needed, but a lighter, more refined aporach workign within the local cultrual structure, ie like convincing a respected elder to come out against it

For all intents your working in a firiegn country. In the iddle east western forces adapted to cultrual norms, used elders, grew beards for respect at times or women to get into the more closed world of some of there groups men could not,. Adapting tactics, ppeople, even aperence, and your very way you talk and body languafge to best work with the existing systems and norms.

the same systems apply here.

I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

Also, other posters may be aware that my reputation is not as the most empathic individual so take that into account when I say, one cannot impugn AN ENTIRE PEOPLE for the actions of a few.* If nothing other than enlightened self interest, that concept is self defeating by fostering radicalization and defeating efforts to redirect vulnerable people away from the jihadi culture.



*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

The thing about secret service work, you only know about it when they feth it up.

"When you do things right, no one will be sure you did anything at all"

*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

Classic doglord projection. Cat people are not hollow inside, because we aren't desperately trying to fill the void with a slavish, co-dependent creature that has zero personal hygiene skills and a pathological need to cater to our whims. We have self motivated, furry room mates with independent lives that trade tummy rubs for dead birds.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think there's a perception that government efforts aren't working. I would not agree with that out of hand as you don't know the amount of community and police efforts that have stopped other persons or steered vulnerable people onto a better path already. I do know that GB has put a lot of effort into media/community efforts to counteract jihadi media recruitment efforts. These may in fact be working greatly.

The thing about secret service work, you only know about it when they feth it up.

"When you do things right, no one will be sure you did anything at all"

*except cat people of course, they are hollow inside.

Classic doglord projection. Cat people are not hollow inside, because we aren't desperately trying to fill the void with a slavish, co-dependent creature that has zero personal hygiene skills and a pathological need to cater to our whims. We have self motivated, furry room mates with independent lives that trade tummy rubs for dead birds.

You win this round, cat lover. But we'll be watching (and barking, and sleeping under the desk and snoring loudly as I type).

 jhe90 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

hrm, I would caution against some of the conclusions here. Most attacks are against soft targets with relatively minimal coordination, and what coordination or subtlety there has been isnt anything terrorists weren't doing a a hundred or more years ago, often much less. The assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881 for instance. The difference is that theyre targeting normal people and going for bodycount rather than hitting out at figures of power or authority directly.

These arent military-level carefully coordinated and intricately planned attacks in most instances. They dont need to be. Theyre not playing 3 dimensional chess with counter terrorism agencies in most instances, nor are they undermining carefully planned and prepared defenses. There are practically an infinite number of targets to attack, few of which can be hardened or adequately protected, especially when the probability of an attack at any one place is basically lotto-odds low (meaning only the most high profile and important places get such protection). There will always be a plethora of tagets for such actors to attack that cannot be adequately defended. The game of vigilance is more one of attempting to undercut the motivators that bring people do engage in such attacks and identifying people *before* they actually carry out an attack (usually the dumb ones), not really in tactical operations and physical security.

Looking at it purely from a lives saved versus dollars spent viewpoint, most counter terrorism spending nets a woefully small return. Mostly it's psychological, terrorist attacks whole point is to have a psychological impact out of all proportion to the damage inflicted, and counter terrorosm security helps making people feel safe and secure, which is important to a functioning society, but in terms of actual lives saved usually nets a whole lot less than healthcare or education or the like.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Yeah but for every successful attack there's dozens more that are stopped before they happen. If you stop trying to stop them then the death toll will likely rise.

Then do the math. Statistics isn't hard.

If the average deaths per terrorist attack is 100, then it would take 2,000 terrorist attacks yearly to match the number of avoidable deaths that healthcare reform would prevent. That's only five-and-a-half high-death-toll terrorist attacks a day. They'd have to stop more than "a dozen for every one that gets through".

I mean, I'd like to have the resources to do both, of course.

Sure, give the death cultists a free hand and stop maintaining the vigilance and large scale security operations they only multiply there attacks as they sense a weak point and go for the kill.

Every attack changes location to find a weak point, Manchester, then they throw it off using a car, they attack different places, they seek out places where the defenses are thinner.
every attack they learn from what worked, we patch and they seek new weak points.

the only way to keep them at bay is to keep guard up, keep adapting, keep countering and keep refining our methods of interception, infiltration and intelligence.,

You do realize that it's not a choice between "do nothing" and "concentration camps", yes?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

And 1700 people die every year in the UK alone in road accidents. Death by terrorist is down there with shark attack.

It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

In terms of $/life saved, anti terrorism measures are pretty poor value, and that's before you factor in the inconvenience factors and invasion of privacy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

Or the attacks in the Middle East whose numbers dwarf the rest put together.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Or the attacks in the Middle East whose numbers dwarf the rest put together.

If i remember correctly the terrorists attacks in the Middle East, Africa, and other war zones make up about 95%, what he get over here (developed first world countries) is under 5%, and most of the terrorist attacks in war zones are in the Middle East.

Those numbers don't include civilian deaths (collateral deaths of war) in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are also huge but are not technically counted as terrorist attacks in that context (but are still civilians being killed).

 Blackie wrote:


Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

 Blackie wrote:

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

Just want to point out, countries have been curb stomped for less. Remember that thing called history?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Good summation of an unpopular truth.

"...but we need to do something"

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

Yes, because in their country they can do whatever they want. We're not americans who are obsessed to export democracy everywhere, if a nation wants to live as radicals it's their right to live that way. A foreing intervention can be justified only if that nation becomes a threat.

Radicalized people in prison are not a problem, the issue is having them walking free in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

That's a completely different matter but with something in common. The majority of those death caused by road accident could be avoided but that means less money for cars industries: it seems acceptable to me to revoked forever your driving license if you drive drunk, but that would mean less number of cars sold. We could do a lot to minimize the deadly accidents but some lobbies wouldn't get their profits then.

 Blackie wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

Yes, because in their country they can do whatever they want. We're not americans who are obsessed to export democracy everywhere, if a nation wants to live as radicals it's their right to live that way. A foreing intervention can be justified only if that nation becomes a threat.

Radicalized people in prison are not a problem, the issue is having them walking free in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

That's a completely different matter but with something in common. The majority of those death caused by road accident could be avoided but that means less money for cars industries: it seems acceptable to me to revoked forever your driving license if you drive drunk, but that would mean less number of cars sold. We could do a lot to minimize the deadly accidents but some lobbies wouldn't get their profits then.

So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

 Ouze wrote:

Good summation of an unpopular truth.

"...but we need to do something"

I think the unpopular truth is that liberalism (as in the political ideology, not the Democratic Party) dont have an answer to this problem. Even though the death count from terrorism is low compared to other things it still a fear people have to live with and gonna want a solution to. People are going to demand politicians to do something and there is nothing they can do that wont infringe on a liberal cornerstone.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

So you'd prefer to keep these radicalized people here in Europe/America?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

I think the unpopular truth is that liberalism (as in the political ideology, not the Democratic Party) dont have an answer to this problem. Even though the death count from terrorism is low compared to other things it still a fear people have to live with and gonna want a solution to. People are going to demand politicians to do something and there is nothing they can do that wont infringe on a liberal cornerstone.

There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

But that doesn't win votes or sell papers. It doesn't allow governments to offer to "Protect us".

Herzlos wrote:
There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

This is my thought as well (well, the latter mostly). I have to imagine the effectiveness of terrorism would be substantially diminished if the country didn't lose it's gak every time there was an incident. We need to stop elevating these crimes. They're not holy martyrs, they're not warriors of god, they're just murderers and thugs.

I honestly cannot believe what I'm reading here. Seriously, do nothing? That's insane.

 Ouze wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

This is my thought as well (well, the latter mostly). I have to imagine the effectiveness of terrorism would be substantially diminished if the country didn't lose it's gak every time there was an incident. We need to stop elevating these crimes. They're not holy martyrs, they're not warriors of god, they're just murderers and thugs.

Won't argue with that.

But the idea that we should just ignore it and do nothing is fething insane. Tell that to the victims and their families.

"Treat it like any other crime" is not doing nothing. The victims and their families will still get an investigation and a criminal cas efor the police looking for the perpetrators. Herzlos and Ouze have a point, terrorists feed off the publicity they get.

Investigate it, find the people responsible, but don't give the terrorists what they want - which is terror in the population through 24/7 media coverage, concerned faces and trodden-out platitudes from politicians. The approach makes sense to me on a certain level, even though it will of course look like "the government is lying to us" "media is ignoring this why" if tried as a new approach...

To be clear, I did emphasize "mostly the latter" - i.e. don't do anything abnormal. A more rational, measured response appropriate to what is most decidedly a non-existential threat, don't tilt your entire security and defense apparatus to problem that kills a miniscule, tiny fraction of people killed by heart disease or beestings or the flu. What is "appropriate" would vary by country, of course.

A few years ago, we attempt to have a trial for KSM in Manhattan, and it was politically nonviable. I think this was a mistake. We can't keep acting like these guys are any better than common criminals - they're not martyrs so dangerous to the US that we need a special, extra legal gulag for them. Store them with the murders, thieves, and rapists in prison.

I think some of the things we've done in the US in the name of combatting terrorism have done substantially more lasting damage to our freedom than zealots with boxcutters did. I'm not familiar enough with what the UK has or has not done to say if it's a global phenomenon.

"Other murders" can't be prevented in many cases, usually there are personal issue among some citizens that end up with a murder.

Here we have a political and religious issue, it's completely different. A society CAN prevent these crimes, not all of them of course but I think we can reduce them drastically. In fact any form of terrorism was specifically fought in the past and several terrorist groups were defeated with specific politics, certainly not dealing with them as common crimes.

Asking for being tougher towards those subjects that manifest radicalization signs, demanding youtube and other web giants to shut down the terrorist propaganda, etc...they are all specific actions that aim to counter islamic radicalization in western countries, is it asking too much?

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

 Peregrine wrote:
if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

Scotland, obviously. Have you never seen Doomsday?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

My apologies. There's another 114 deaths plus injuries on top of the 3551 I already mentioned.

Still, that's hardly anybody so we should just do nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

There are no infiltrated, but common citizens that at a certain point of their life decide to become jihadists. How many people arrived in europe and already were terrorists? Probably none.

I suggested that we should strip their european nationality and deport them. With the term deport I can think about different solutions, once could be to send them to those african countries that are allied to europe and get a lot of money from us, like northern africa nations. All of these terrorist are of foreign origins, and tipycally their country of origin is allied to europe, we could just give them that nationality. For example an english born terrorist with saudi origins can become a saudi citizen. We give billions to those nations, they can keep some hundreds or a few thousands people (per nation) if we decide to act this way.

Or maybe just gather them into a facility that has the only purpose to keep those people there.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

My apologies. There's another 114 deaths plus injuries on top of the 3551 I already mentioned.

Still, that's hardly anybody so we should just do nothing.

Noone said do nothing; I said we should treat it as any other crime (it's all already illegal). Drop the "terrorist" label, and treat it like you would if a white guy did it.

You've still got a police force and and intelligence force, but without all the rabid outrage.

Also, you're talking about 3665 deaths over 16 years, with a world population of 7,000,000,000. That's 0.0005% percent of the current population. Statistically, it's absolutely insignificant.

As I said, nearly 5 times as many people died in the UK in car accidents every year, than to terrorist attacks over the last 16.

Even taking 9/11 as somehow representative, that's 2977 deaths in a population of 311.7 million. That means 0.0009% of the US population.


I have never said we should do nothing, but if you want to save lives, fighting terrorism is a total waste of time.

Plus, what do terrorists want? Outrage and fear. Starve them of that and we defeat their purpose and show them that we are better than them. They'll still be arrested and convicted, but they won't be feared or martyred. You get that, surely?

 jhe90 wrote:
British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

You're missing the point entirely. The "deport them all" argument is based on the premise that the people in question are temporary residents of "our" countries, and we can send them back to their Islamic theocracies to do all their awful things. But now you're saying that the potential terrorists are born in Europe, not invaders from outside. What exactly do you accomplish by deporting someone from the UK to France? I suppose maybe you're giving your terrorism problem to your neighbor, but it's hardly preventing terrorist attacks in general.

And no, "deport them to Antarctica" is not a reasonable or intelligent thing to say. Deporting someone means sending them back to their country of origin. Unless these supposed terrorists are born in Antarctica sending them there would not be deporting them. It would be imprisoning them. And JFC, I thought the fact that "exile people forever in a remote prison colony" is a terrible idea was something we figured out a long time ago.

Ignoring the attacks is as good as doing nothing. You won't stop them by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing going on.

I'm pretty sure foreign nations would not be happy to take known terrorists, deported for being terrorists, as new citizens in their country, especially if their birthplace was indeed Britain. Paying countries to keep them might work with poorer African nations in dire need of funds, but honestly, if you send known terrorists over there they are either 1. going to be set free depending on who is pulling the strings in that local region or 2. the government will imprison them because they have very little reason to let known terrorists run free.

Option 1 sounds not very helpful, Option 2 sounds just like outsourcing a prison system with less humanitarian rights oversight.


On the topic of prison colonies: If you're going to have security and wardens there, holy moly, huge logistical operation and a position no one will be keen to have. If your idea is honestly just dropping everybody there and airlifting in some supplies from time to time, the whole place will just become a survival-of-the-fittest, tribal hellhole that will make Somalia look tame in comparison.

 Blackie wrote:
There are no infiltrated, but common citizens that at a certain point of their life decide to become jihadists. How many people arrived in europe and already were terrorists? Probably none.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

I suggested that we should strip their european nationality and deport them. With the term deport I can think about different solutions, once could be to send them to those african countries that are allied to europe and get a lot of money from us, like northern africa nations. All of these terrorist are of foreign origins, and tipycally their country of origin is allied to europe, we could just give them that nationality. For example an english born terrorist with saudi origins can become a saudi citizen. We give billions to those nations, they can keep some hundreds or a few thousands people (per nation) if we decide to act this way.

This has got to be a parody...

 jhe90 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

You mean like the Soviets did with people they didn't like? How do you get to decide who is undesirable or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Ignoring the attacks is as good as doing nothing. You won't stop them by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing going on.

Ignoring the terrorism aspect of them. Deal with the attacks as you deal with any other crime. "Terrorist attack on tube" becomes "man sets off bomb on tube". Perpetrator is just as guilty, just as jailed/dead, but without all of the hysteria.

Like when a white person does it, they are a mentally unstable lone wolf. We already do it, we just need to do it for everyone.

TIL that unless one makes a big deal about the ethnicity and religion of a criminal, they are "doing nothing". Huh.

 feeder wrote:
TIL that unless one makes a big deal about the ethnicity and religion of a criminal, they are "doing nothing". Huh.

Don't forget that one has to get really mad when one gets called out on posting racist drivel as well and loudly proclaim that "racist" is just used as a bludgeon to silence dissent. It's important, because it lets you score an extra 5 credits in the "woe is me I'm a victim of the establishment" lottery.

Was the Antarctica thing not a parody post? I was laughing at it.

Many people turn to terrorism due to social and / or mental health issues.

Perhaps one of the most efficient methods of anti terrorism would be draining the recruitment pool by providing support for those issues.

I kind of like the 'don't do anything special' for terror attacks. Going with the parody theme, I can imagine the papers:

"In a tragic turn of events a deranged young man, unable to access the support he needed, took his own life today. Due to the weapon of choice there was an unfortunate number of collateral casualties and damage to property.

The suicide victim and his estate are as such being charged for manslaughter and vandalism. The police are asking that anyone who witnessed these events, or knew the individual, step forward".

 Peregrine wrote:


...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

We can say a lot of things about the 9/11, some people even think that it was orchestrated by the CIA (I don't, of course), but I don't really want to discuss that matter. I will just say that the 9/11 was an event that occurred 16 years ago, while the current terrorist groups are completely different than al-qaeda.

It's also a massive outlier, in terms of prevention and effect.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

So you'd prefer to keep these radicalized people here in Europe/America?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

Yeah, I thought through how many people actually die to terrorism each year, then I realized if you kept the people who were "radicalized" while in prison in your country, you could better monitor them. Then if they do anything to break the law, back in jail.

But hey, just send them back where they will cause more death and destruction.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

So you'd prefer to keep these radicalized people here in Europe/America?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

Yeah, I thought through how many people actually die to terrorism each year, then I realized if you kept the people who were "radicalized" while in prison in your country, you could better monitor them. Then if they do anything to break the law, back in jail.

But hey, just send them back where they will cause more death and destruction.

I'd rather they caused death and destruction back in their countries of origin than here on British streets,

So dump the problem on someone else. Classy.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So dump the problem on someone else. Classy.

If they're not British citizens, yeah. Why should Britain be a dumping ground for the rest of the world's terrorists?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So dump the problem on someone else. Classy.

If they're not British citizens, yeah. Why should Britain be a dumping ground for the rest of the world's terrorists?

Because there's a small group of people in Britain sitting in high places who want to feel righteously cuddly regardless of the consequences. The death and destruction and heightened sense of fear is a small price to pay to have their egos stroked. And to rub the rights face in it of course.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So dump the problem on someone else. Classy.

If they're not British citizens, yeah. Why should Britain be a dumping ground for the rest of the world's terrorists?

Because there's a small group of people in Britain sitting in high places who want to feel righteously cuddly regardless of the consequences. The death and destruction and heightened sense of fear is a small price to pay to have their egos stroked. And to rub the rights face in it of course.

Not really, it's because there's a small group of people sitting in the most important western countries that earn billions by trafficking human beings. No one really cares about the immigrants' lives, they're just trying to sell the idea that western societies are bad and we should help the third world to make their business flourish.

But mass migrations don't help these people, since the majority of them won't have a future once they arrive. Maybe just in the biggest cities of the richest countries, and even there the locals tipycally don't want anything to do with them. In italy the majority of those migrants, refugees or not, ends up in structures that are not that different to prisons, or they turn into criminals (usually drug dealers) or exploited by mafia groups as slaves. Others disappear and cross illegally the border.

That's the real reason why some eastern european nations don't want those immigrants, it's not because of their different culture, but because they can't give them a role in their societies, they would be only a burden.

We've finished discussing anything useful/on topic and devolved into the usual "most migrants end up as X" sort of rubbish these threads often end with.

Do better off topic section, I wish to God you could do better