Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.