›

CLOSED

1…1213151718…164

Comments

  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »


    Funny man. THUNDERPUSSY - I bet you don't have a professional job then. Seriously what type of person comes on to a forum each day, spends time writing stuff and calls themself Thunderpussy?

    Wow, just wow. You are aware that I have friends caught up in this terrorist attack aren't you? How insensitive can you be? And more to the point I haven't made any insults at all thank you very much.
    No, I wasn't aware, as you've not mentioned it before and hence I have a hard time believing that, as it would be the first thing to mention in this kind of a thread. If it's true my apologies, but as I said, there's no evidence to underpin your statement.

    Are you now telling me the boldened text, written by you, was not meant as a personal insult? It certainly seemed so to me.

    And tbh, if you think stating facts is beeing insensitive, I'm afraid life will give you a lot of lemons.

    No, it wasn't meant as an insult at all. Thunderpussy and I are good friends. I think it's called 'banter' between friends.

    In that case I stand corrected. Doesn't take away your previous one-word replies in a serious topic. If that was 'banter' as well, all I can say I find it a very inappropriate place to 'banter' with your friends, on an international forum where most readers are not aware of this background, when so many young people have died.

    Disagree. And if I want to make one word comments I damn well will. It is a free country isn't it ... oh wait, let's let terrorists dictate our rule of law and our right to free speech, whether it be but a single word.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    bondjames wrote: »

    @stag, thanks for your reply to my earlier post. I still don't see how you can be absolutely certain that law enforcement (even when working in concert with other countries) can definitively source a hacking threat.

    Experience.

  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    A controversial opinion I know, but my opinion nonetheless. As far as I'm concerned, those who seek, for whatever reason, to protect these assorted vermin - vermin whose only objective is to kill and maim - are just as culpable for these atrocities as those who detonate the bombs, squeeze the triggers, drive the cars, wield the knives.

    The phrase 'police state' seems to be bandied around, when in fact it is targeted action against the enemies of Great Britain, its people and its way of life. The simple fact is that we don't have to put up with what we are putting up with, we can remove much of the threat at source.

    I'll bide my time until it emerges that the PoS and any associates were previously known to police/MI5 as suspected terrorists. I will then ask the question of the detractors that would it have been better to take these people out of circulation in order to protect the wider civilian population or, focus only on their personal 'rights', and allow them to remain at large to do what they have done and will continue to do?

    When exactly does the balance of justice shift from the terrorist to the victim?
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Stag, you make some good points but the weakness in your argument is that is all made with hindsight. We know certain suspects become terrorists because we see their actions. But to take a suspect and punish them because of something that they may have done in future is very different. And who decides the level of evidence to prove that they would have done something in future? where is the threshhold. Much of this is a "state of mind" and we cant read minds.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    patb wrote: »
    Stag, you make some good points but the weakness in your argument is that is all made with hindsight. We know certain suspects become terrorists because we see their actions. But to take a suspect and punish them because of something that they may have done in future is very different. And who decides the level of evidence to prove that they would have done something in future? where is the threshhold. Much of this is a "state of mind" and we cant read minds.

    @patb thanks for speaking sense.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I went into detail in previous posts. To paraphrase what I said in those posts, evidence should be presented to a panel of judges - if that evidence is compelling enough, then authority would be given to arrest/detain the suspects. There's no hindsight about it really, more of a case of affirmative action contained within the precincts of (new) common law. It's not about mind reading either but piecing together evidence to prove intent.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    I went into detail in previous posts. To paraphrase what I said in those posts, evidence should be presented to a panel of judges - if that evidence is compelling enough, then authority would be given to arrest/detain the suspects. There's no hindsight about it really, more of a case of affirmative action contained within the precincts of (new) common law. It's not about mind reading either but piecing together evidence to prove intent.

    Erm ... that's what they already do ...
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I just got news from my sister that a friend of hers, who had taken his daughter to the concert, was caught up in the blast and is in hospital. She doesn't know any further details as to the severity of his injuries at this time.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    That must ram it home to you @stag ,knowing how closely linked to it you are.
    Your sister must be in shock !
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    stag wrote: »
    I just got news from my sister that a friend of hers, who had taken his daughter to the concert, was caught up in the blast and is in hospital. She doesn't know any further details as to the severity of his injuries at this time.

    That's terrible news, I hope they all made it out just fine. One of my first thoughts last night when I saw this unfolding was just how many people on here likely lived in/near the area and just might've been involved in going to the concert.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    I went into detail in previous posts. To paraphrase what I said in those posts, evidence should be presented to a panel of judges - if that evidence is compelling enough, then authority would be given to arrest/detain the suspects. There's no hindsight about it really, more of a case of affirmative action contained within the precincts of (new) common law. It's not about mind reading either but piecing together evidence to prove intent.

    Erm ... that's what they already do ...

    It isn't. Far from it. With all due respect you appear to be ping ponging a bit in response to different posts.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    I went into detail in previous posts. To paraphrase what I said in those posts, evidence should be presented to a panel of judges - if that evidence is compelling enough, then authority would be given to arrest/detain the suspects. There's no hindsight about it really, more of a case of affirmative action contained within the precincts of (new) common law. It's not about mind reading either but piecing together evidence to prove intent.

    Erm ... that's what they already do ...

    It isn't. Far from it. With all due respect you appear to be ping ponging a bit in response to different posts.

    Before you weren't taking at all of evidence. If MI5/the police have enough evidence to arrest a suspect they most certainly do. So if I'm the proverbial ping pong it's because you mislaid the evidence ...
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    But you are still missing the point - yes arrest but not detain under the provisions in which I lay out. Sadly the only person who 'mislays evidence' in this instance is your good self.

    Please note also that I am not taking the easy route out, by this I mean I choose not to claim a desire to no longer speak about the subject when it doesn't suit me to. After all this is a discussion forum.

    Please, where do you stand? Do you believe that the rights of the terrorist should be placed above those of the ordinary citizen? From where I'm sitting it appears to be the case.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    @barryt007 & @Creasy47 thank you for your sentiments. I don't know the person involved. As far as I'm aware he had taken his daughter to the concert. I'm not sure if she was with him at the time of the blast. Without encroaching on this most sensitive of subjects, I will attempt to give more information as and when I receive it.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Stag knock it off, today as most days actually we lose children through senseless violence and terrorism, which shakes us in Europe and is largely ignored when it happens somewhere else like Asia of the middle east.

    If there was a simple solution it would have been chosen. Unless we want to give up all our freedoms because it would make us safer we will have to do with checks and balances in the law and society and human rights. If we don't they have won and we do also disappear in an autocratic society.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I'll knock nothing off. Who said my solution was simple? Yours however - to simply bury your head in the sand - is the simplest yet most devastating of all.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Anyone on here generalizing Muslims, or refugees, or thinking that the only way to stop shitty people with bombs from detonating those bombs, is to get rid of all Muslims and refugees, needs to read this.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    No one is generalising Muslims. FFS if all Muslims were terrorists then we would have all gone up in smoke a long time ago! This is the sort of liberalist claptrap behind which the terrorists hide behind. (No I haven't clicked on the link) People who think anyone who dares to speak up against terrorism has it in for all Muslims are simply deluded.

    FYI the next step is to accuse me of racism.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    stag wrote: »
    I'll knock nothing off. Who said my solution was simple? Yours however - to simply bury your head in the sand - is the simplest yet most devastating of all.

    I meant knock it off starting a discussion that has been many times with no solution but a moderator closing a thread.

    There a different views and some will never agree but today's loss is one that hurts everybody. As will any future loss or any past loss.

    I do hope your sisters friend will be okay. That is actually very important.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I see.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    edited May 2017 Posts: 2,402
    Read the post, stag. I wrote it. If you still violently disagree then so be it. But between this and losing Roger I have no debate left in me.

    Mod Edit for language.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    Keep it friendly, chaps. Don't know why every single time some tragic event occurs this place has to blow up over politics.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I've no intention of not keeping it friendly - No I won't be ordered to read the post, as I said prevously, if all Muslims were terrorists then we would have all found out if the afterlife actually exists. Sadly some people cannot differentiate when we speak about terrorists and the wider Muslim population.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    In between this attack and the passing of Moore, I'm sure everyone is highly emotional and on edge right now, but no need to take it out on one another. If you disagree with one another, move on.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    stag wrote: »
    I've no intention of not keeping it friendly - No I won't be ordered to read the post, as I said prevously, if all Muslims were terrorists then we would have all found out if the afterlife actually exists. Sadly some people cannot differentiate when we speak about terrorists and the wider Muslim population.

    Well then stop being a cock about the post. If you won't even read it then you have no clue as to what its' contents are or why it might be useful to you to read.

    But you just keep calling for us to not help refugees who are trying to escape from acts of terror like this. I bet you'r next argument is that we should help all those homeless people in our own backyard who you've never before given a toss about, right?
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited May 2017 Posts: 1,053
    Double post with the one below!
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited May 2017 Posts: 1,053
    I would be most grateful if you to point out to me and other contributors - either here or elsewhere on this site - my alleged statements about not helping refugees. Could it be that you simply like to place words or sentiments into other peoples mouths for your own convenience?

    Also it may be best if you stop attempting to turn the discussion away from what it is and into a platform upon which you can mount personal attacks?

    I look forward to you pointing out the posts in which you allege I speak on such terms about refugees. You might find out - if you do care to look - that I restrict myself to terrorists - not Muslims or refugees. I also look forward (though don't expect) an apology for misrepresenting me in this manner. If you are successful (and please note, just in case I am trying to cover my tracks, the times of any editing) I will apologise to you.

    Thank you and happy hunting though my posts.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    @stag the problem is, 'intent' is never strong enough a basis to get people jailed, nor should it ever. That's just opening the door to governments who will adjust 'intent' according to their views. Look at Turkey, a country not too long ago proud of it's secular democratic system.

    It is very frustrating, I know, but that's where the boundaries lie. So idiots like this will always have a chance to attack defenseless people. we can't prevent that, other then trying to talk sense into their heads. Or stop them right before they actually hurt someone, as happened recently at the British Parliament.

    I sincerely hope your sister's friend is ok!
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    @CommanderRoss, yes I am fully aware of the issues you raise. However we must do something. These people are hell bent on destroying us and our way of life - do we continue to afford them the same protections as law abiding citizens (protections behind which they hide) or do we treat them for what they are, enemies of the state?
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    To target kids and young adults beggars belief even for these scumbags. Thoughts and love and prayers to all those families affected.
This discussion has been closed.