The liberal do-gooders will cry Wolf mate. They will argue human rights and you will get some twat human rights lawyer standing up for these vermin.
Off Topic More London Attacks
- Thread starter Albert's Chip Shop
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The liberal do-gooders will cry Wolf mate. They will argue human rights and you will get some twat human rights lawyer standing up for these vermin.
'The terrorists want us to hate muslims so let's not let them win, let's show love'- Twitter
No twitter... they want to murder as the warped ****s distort the Koran to their twisted ends in the stupid belief they'll selfishly get to **** 40 virgins in Heaven oh.... and they are winning...... so let's show resolve.
No twitter... they want to murder as the warped ****s distort the Koran to their twisted ends in the stupid belief they'll selfishly get to **** 40 virgins in Heaven oh.... and they are winning...... so let's show resolve.
You must log in or register to see images
Muslims killing Muslims is a way of life for this sick ideology.
In countries such as Syria and Iraq, they have fought and died fighting to expel the scum.
Yet, we let them and their supporters roam free in the UK with impunity.
It beggars belief.
During a time of war, the enemy within should be securely removed from society.
In countries such as Syria and Iraq, they have fought and died fighting to expel the scum.
Yet, we let them and their supporters roam free in the UK with impunity.
It beggars belief.
During a time of war, the enemy within should be securely removed from society.
They use social media to organise and radicalise so companies like facebook and twitter should be forced to divulge data to our security services. There is a digital footprint for everything.
Broadly speaking, I'm one of the 'yuman rights brigade' in that I don't think that hate preachers should be subjected to detention without trial or suspected terrorists summarily executed without proof. Even if the consequences of that is a greater risk of terror attacks.
That's not because I don't think the ****ers deserve it. They do.
It's because what is used against a Jihadi today can be used against me tomorrow.
Imagine what a politician like Donald Trump could do with laws that allowed him to shut down 'speech likely to destabilise public order.' Just imagine what a politician like John 'Honour the IRA' McDonnell might be tempted to do with 'religious extremists' like the Orange Order.
As ACS pointed out, even the terror laws we have get abused to try and suppress football fans.
We're very fortunate in this country never to have lived under a police state, so we tend to underestimate the risk of that. It's also hard to compare the risk of a future government abusing laws to the risk of a terror attack.
I'm not necessarily expecting you to agree with me: we will weight things differently. I personally fear the possibility of a police state more than I do the small but non zero chance of a terror attack. You might not. That doesn't make you a fascist or me a PC idiot who loves the terrorists.
Just understand that it's not black-and-white, and that there's a tradeoff between OUR liberty and OUR safety.
That's not because I don't think the ****ers deserve it. They do.
It's because what is used against a Jihadi today can be used against me tomorrow.
Imagine what a politician like Donald Trump could do with laws that allowed him to shut down 'speech likely to destabilise public order.' Just imagine what a politician like John 'Honour the IRA' McDonnell might be tempted to do with 'religious extremists' like the Orange Order.
As ACS pointed out, even the terror laws we have get abused to try and suppress football fans.
We're very fortunate in this country never to have lived under a police state, so we tend to underestimate the risk of that. It's also hard to compare the risk of a future government abusing laws to the risk of a terror attack.
I'm not necessarily expecting you to agree with me: we will weight things differently. I personally fear the possibility of a police state more than I do the small but non zero chance of a terror attack. You might not. That doesn't make you a fascist or me a PC idiot who loves the terrorists.
Just understand that it's not black-and-white, and that there's a tradeoff between OUR liberty and OUR safety.
We do but also look more so to the Deobandi. Wahabism accounts for 5% of Mosques in the country but the Deobandi is around 50-55%. Read about it mate - because no one in the media will talk about it. Wahabism and the Saudis is the safe way for liberal media commentators to talk about the problem but without provoking the ire of a vast number of Muslims in the country. Wahabism in Europe is undoubtedly a bigger threat but Deobandi is as ultra conservative, toxic and dangerous and not Saudi funded. It should be talked about far more and monitored accordingly.
This is exactly the problem - police, intelligence services etc have had their hands tied by politically correct bullshit for too long
If this was the late 1930s the whole situation in Germany would still be seen as our fault by the bleeding heart, do-gooders because we were "mean" to the Germans after WW1
It's never their fault....
I say if you're on the watch list you're to be deported. I value human rights but those rights can only stretch to those who are human.
I'm certainly for our police and security services operating within the law, but that doesn't mean you can't look at changing the law within reason to help them arrest and prosecute hate preachers and others if they are found to be crossing the line. Or is it a case of them not applying the existing laws and if that is the case why aren't they?
I don't see the harm in it to be honest. Do they/could they not use the 'dark web' to communicate though? My understanding is that is somewhat harder to monitor.
It's very simple. POW are POWS until the conflict ends. Detention, not imprisonment, no courts or tribunals needed.
When the war is over they can go home. That's when the islamic caliphate and all major terror groups conceed defeat, disband and make public statements, give up their weapons and make it clear that the war is over.
That is how we used to do it. When the war is over, POWs usually go home, you don't go through the trouble of trying to prove in each individual case who did what when and why they were the enemy. Researching how to build bombs or talking about jihad is a clear indication of hostile activity. There should be a short hearing on lawful imprisonment for each individual.
Associating with known terrorists also is an indication of being part of a hostile force.
Pretty simple, when you catch some guys scouting out your defensive lines, and one shoots at you and you kill him, do you really let his 3 buddies go?
When the war is over they can go home. That's when the islamic caliphate and all major terror groups conceed defeat, disband and make public statements, give up their weapons and make it clear that the war is over.
That is how we used to do it. When the war is over, POWs usually go home, you don't go through the trouble of trying to prove in each individual case who did what when and why they were the enemy. Researching how to build bombs or talking about jihad is a clear indication of hostile activity. There should be a short hearing on lawful imprisonment for each individual.
Associating with known terrorists also is an indication of being part of a hostile force.
Pretty simple, when you catch some guys scouting out your defensive lines, and one shoots at you and you kill him, do you really let his 3 buddies go?
Detention didnt work in Northern Ireland. Why should it work now?
For those born in this country do they go home? And who is the person or persons who say the war is over?
Do you know if you have mixed with a "known" terrorist?
Talking about Jihad being a clear indication of hostile activity? You just did.
Too many simple solutions being given to a very complex problem. There is no one cause to the problem and there is no one solution. Extreme responses are not the solution. We have laws in place, we should enforce them with zero tolerance and abide by the process of law.
It won't solve the problem over night but then again nothing will.
We should also ensure that all parts of the justice system are properly and adequately sourced and funded.
Everyone stop taking hysteria juice.
We are not at war. A small group of petty criminals have adopted a brand. They cause far fewer deaths than Saturday night punch ups do. They cause far fewer deaths than just about anything in fact.
This is not to say nothing should be done. It should be possible to obtain a warrant for email communications. Hiring a few more police might be a good idea.
The idea that these people are any sort of big scary threat to anything, though, is daft.
We are not at war. A small group of petty criminals have adopted a brand. They cause far fewer deaths than Saturday night punch ups do. They cause far fewer deaths than just about anything in fact.
This is not to say nothing should be done. It should be possible to obtain a warrant for email communications. Hiring a few more police might be a good idea.
The idea that these people are any sort of big scary threat to anything, though, is daft.