›

CLOSED

1…1415171920…164

Comments

  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to continue the debate.

    This on the radio this morning:

    On the radio, a former head of COBRA has said all non British suspected extremists should be deported, as this one act would free up resources to watch the rest.

  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to continue the debate.

    This on the radio this morning:

    On the radio, a former head of COBRA has said all non British suspected extremists should be deported, as this one act would free up resources to watch the rest.

    Wrong course of action. That's just my opinion if I'm allowed to have it.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    stag wrote: »
    Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to continue the debate.

    This on the radio this morning:

    On the radio, a former head of COBRA has said all non British suspected extremists should be deported, as this one act would free up resources to watch the rest.

    Do it !!!

    Tough times call for tough measures and these idiots play on the fact that they have 'rights' and everyone is too scared to make the first move against them.

    Sorry but if you start targeting children then its time to grow some balls and strike back.

    Deport them AND their families.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Which, I think was suggested on this thread ? Strange how an intelligence expert
    ( Living in the real world ) with much experience, came up with that. Or should
    We just tell him " There are other ways" ..... Hug a terrorist, they just need love.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,164
    stag wrote: »
    I wonder what happened to all the Nazi prisoners of war who were captured and brought to England during WW2? Could someone explain if they were released into society or interred until the end of hostilities?

    A redundant analogy? But aren't the terrorists at war with us? (I know it would shake the sensibilities of the handwringers to contemplate such an admission).

    We can't fight these people with conventional means, so we have to be unconventional in our approach and (GASP) as part of that have to actually consider encroaching on their civil liberties when they have been positively identified as threats. I know it might be too much to take for some of the more sensitive among us, but unfortunately thats how war works.

    Until then just wait for the next attack.

    My grandparents had a German prisoner of war stay with them during WW2. He helped out on my grandparents farm. They remained friends after the war, and my family visited his family in Germany on numerous occasions. We still keep in touch, now into the fourth generation to do so.
    Times have changed now. Now the war is a faceless one. Anyone could be the terrorist. Radicalised in some way. I think the security services do a fantastic job in what they do.
    One of the biggest problems is those that don't want to integrate into those of the country in which they live. I'm not suggesting they have to ignore their heritage. But not to ignore those of the country they're in. At my children's' school they stopped calling it Christmas Service, and renamed it holiday service. Because it might offend people.
    Why should I have to change what I've practiced since I was born. Since before I was born. Be offended if you have to. What happens. Nothing. Being offended doesn't change anything, it's just a word.
    If you choose to seek refuse in a country, or decide that a country will give you a better way of life for your family, then by all means I agree. I don't care about skin colour or religion. But don't try and change the ways of that country because you want to. It's where a big part of the problem lies.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Which, I think was suggested on this thread ? Strange how an intelligence expert
    ( Living in the real world ) with much experience, came up with that. Or should
    We just tell him " There are other ways" ..... Hug a terrorist, they just need love.

    It was indeed,i have to confess it was me who suggested it .

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    You are indeed wise ......... Not sure about the looks though !
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    You are indeed wise ......... Not sure about the looks though !

    Hahahaha I do alright in the looks department....but Roger Moore I aint....

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Who let this evil fanaticism into our societies in the first place?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Who let this evil fanaticism into our societies in the first place?

    Tony Blair.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    stag wrote: »
    @bondjames, we are not talking about some Hollywood B movie, but the British legal system. Do you honestly believe that a panel of British judges would unofficially order executions?
    No, but as I've said here a few months back and again yesterday, there are other ways to combat this (and I've listed suggestions, included below from a previous post).

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/comment/718792/#Comment_718792

    We are not doing everything we can be doing in my view. We should, before resorting to these kind of draconian and freedom curbing measures which you propose.

    As an example, it was reported yesterday that security was lax at the event, which is exactly what I surmised in my first 'post-attack' post, when I speculated as to why Manchester was the source. Why was this so? This was a concert by a major star in a country which had only recently survived a terrorist attack in a public place (and so where the terror alert should have been high). If everyone was doing their job, security would have been heightened here and not derelict. At the very least, the UK should be doing what France has been doing post-Charlie Hebdo & Nice.

    Another Hollywood film entitled The Siege came to mind after I read your suggestions. For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it, & not just because it stars Denzel Washington & Bruce Willis.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    @bondjames, we are not talking about some Hollywood B movie, but the British legal system. Do you honestly believe that a panel of British judges would unofficially order executions?
    No, but as I've said here a few months back and again yesterday, there are other ways to combat this (and I've listed suggestions, included below from a previous post).

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/comment/718792/#Comment_718792

    We are not doing everything we can be doing in my view. We should, before resorting to these kind of draconian and freedom curbing measures which you propose.

    As an example, it was reported yesterday that security was lax at the event, which is exactly what I surmised in my first 'post-attack' post, when I speculated as to why Manchester was the source. Why was this so? This was a concert by a major star in a country which had only recently survived a terrorist attack in a public place (and so where the terror alert should have been high). If everyone was doing their job, security would have been heightened here and not derelict. At the very least, the UK should be doing what France has been doing post-Charlie Hebdo & Nice.

    Another Hollywood film entitled The Siege came to mind after I read your suggestions. For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it, & not just because it stars Denzel Washington & Bruce Willis.

    Agree @bondjames I'm thankful for a return to reason and sanity.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    So everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable and Insane ?
    Who's the fascist now !
  • patbpatb
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,617
    Happy to be corrected but the bomb went off in a public area where tickets/leaflets are collected and parents wait to collect their kids. As a public space, the level of security is obviously lower than the area where ticket holders are checked etc. There was a period just after the event where it was assumed the bomb went off within the arena and that lead to comments concerning the bag searching.
    IMHO you can have all the security you want but I'm struggling to see how you can provide "real time" protection from someone wearng a bomb, willing to kill themselves.
    Humans, by nature, enjoy each others company. We tend to gather in groups and most of these groups are in public spaces or areas with no security. There is no lack of targets all over the UK and Europe.
    PS I went to the cricket at Lords a few weeks ago and my rucksack was not checked despite the presence of security checks, just walked straight through.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    From my post of March 26th after the Westminster attacks on page 2 of this thread
    bondjames wrote: »
    The current policy by western countries will inevitably lead to an Israeli style mindset and response mechanism with time. That is where we are headed. We're just not there yet.

    From another post on the same page
    bondjames wrote: »
    I was more referring to the inevitability of a heightened security posture & loss of personal freedoms. We will see more of that with time, as technology improves and as these attacks continue.

    And finally, here we are. Predictable and exactly what they want.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Thanks for that @bondjames. I read your proposals but I honestly cannot see any viability. In fact there are one or two which are as every bit as controversial as my own! I refer specifically to (quote in bold):

    We are not doing everything we can be doing in my view. We should, before resorting to these kind of draconian and freedom curbing measures which you propose

    Under your own proposals you wish to implement the following:

    limit the number of 'places of worship' or ensure they are better regulated and subject to more stringent rules prior to being eligible for charity status.

    Ensure that intelligence operatives are stationed in the largest and most popular ones 'as a legal requirement' in the interest of public security and safety. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they have nothing to be worried about.

    limit the number of units in community housing and social assistance housing in a specific neighbourhood that is eligible for people from a certain religious background    .

    Do you actually believe that the above would court no more controversy, or drive those affected into the arms of the radicals? Surely you are targeting the many not the few? I note with great interest that Tanaka agrees with you!
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    So everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable and Insane ?
    Who's the fascist now !

    uh? What the ... oh my word you think that I think anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable and insane! What the ... right okay, lost for words ...
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    Thanks for that @bondjames. I read your proposals but I honestly cannot see any viability. In fact there are one or two which are as every bit as controversial as my own! I refer specifically to (quote in bold):

    We are not doing everything we can be doing in my view. We should, before resorting to these kind of draconian and freedom curbing measures which you propose

    Under your own proposals you wish to implement the following:

    limit the number of 'places of worship' or ensure they are better regulated and subject to more stringent rules prior to being eligible for charity status.

    Ensure that intelligence operatives are stationed in the largest and most popular ones 'as a legal requirement' in the interest of public security and safety. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they have nothing to be worried about.

    limit the number of units in community housing and social assistance housing in a specific neighbourhood that is eligible for people from a certain religious background    .

    Do you actually believe that the above would court no more controversy, or drive those affected into the arms of the radicals? Surely you are targeting the many not the few? I note with great interest that Tanaka agrees with you!

    Did I say that? Hmm, don't think I did.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @stag, I don't propose to know all the answers. I'm not all that well versed in everything to say the least.

    These are just suggestions. Ideas to be debated and kicked around. Refined. The same goes for yours. What I don't want to see is any knee jerk reaction based on an emotional response, which is what I'm sensing from many posters here (not yourself). "Women! children!" comes to mind.

    Yes, I'm sure that the above suggestions could court controversy, but some of them are essential in my mind to getting to the 'source' of this problem, which is how these people become radicalized in the first place. Your suggestions are not getting to the cause.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Tanaka I quote you here:

    Agree @bondjames I'm thankful for a return to reason and sanity.

    What part of the word 'Agree' don't you understand? Could it be - as demonstrated throughout your tenure in this discussion - that you are flipflopping? Or is it you are agreeing with something you simply haven't bothered to read?

    Also (quote)

    uh? What the ... oh my word you think that I think anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable and insane! What the ... right okay, lost for words ...

    You said it alright! As for the 'lost for words' bit - I don't think so!
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    @bondjames

    These are just suggestions. Ideas to be debated and kicked around. Refined. The same goes for yours

    Exactly!

    Meanwhile I patiently await the results of the search through my posts by another poster who accused my of saying things which I didn't about refugees and the wider Muslim population. I won't hold my breath for an apology though! I wonder what that same poster will make of your own proposals? Banning/limiting places of worship etc?
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Just further to your point @bondjames, it was recently reported that a former head of MI5 (I'm doing this from memory) went on record as saying Tony Blair's efforts to de-radicalise certain sections of the Muslim community who were deemed vulnerable to such things, has been a complete waste of effort. So, the efforts to de-radicalise by engagement between the authorities, senior Muslims, whomever else, and those at risk of radicalisation has indeed already been tried.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @stag, perhaps it has been tried, but not done well enough.

    A slightly more heavy handed approach is required in my view, to incentivize (with carrots and sticks) Muslims to become more involved in the process. If that means locking up a 'few' of the most radical and proven dangerous elements, then I'm open to it. Why it took so long for hate monger Anjem Choudary to be locked up still surprises me.

    As I said on the 2nd page, I believe multiculturalism is a failure when it comes to the Muslim community. It just reinforces self serving behaviour.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    Tanaka I quote you here:

    Agree @bondjames I'm thankful for a return to reason and sanity.

    What part of the word 'Agree' don't you understand? Could it be - as demonstrated throughout your tenure in this discussion - that you are flipflopping? Or is it you are agreeing with something you simply haven't bothered to read?

    Also (quote)

    uh? What the ... oh my word you think that I think anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable and insane! What the ... right okay, lost for words ...

    You said it alright! As for the 'lost for words' bit - I don't think so!

    Yes, I agreed with the post - but not the suggestions - you do like to jump on people don't you?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    Just further to your point @bondjames, it was recently reported that a former head of MI5 (I'm doing this from memory) went on record as saying Tony Blair's efforts to de-radicalise certain sections of the Muslim community who were deemed vulnerable to such things, has been a complete waste of effort. So, the efforts to de-radicalise by engagement between the authorities, senior Muslims, whomever else, and those at risk of radicalisation has indeed already been tried.

    You come across as the person that has to be right about everything - sorry you are coming across as a bit of a ****
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I do think @stag is winning this discussion.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I do think @stag is winning this discussion.

    Yeah, because you agree with him ... And I'm not trying to 'win' anything - if anything I've admitted defeat if you seriously want to look at this as a matter of losing and winning an argument.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I guess I'm being unreasonable and insane again.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Come on peeps,we are all on the same side here...lets put our efforts into promoting ideas rather than falling into a point scoring session.

    If you take a look at the post I made to start this thread and adhere to it,i would appreciate it !!
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I guess I'm being unreasonable and insane again.

    No, not at all. I've never described you as such. If I've offended you at any point I'm truly sorry. I've never thought of you as insane and unreasonable. I don't know you.
This discussion has been closed.