Shots fired outside parliament - Please refrain from speculative and antagonistic posts
- Thread starter Mr Jack
- Start date
Somewhere outside the EU, but I won't have to move a yard now, will I, thanks to English law and its vote system?
Don't know. If you googled the daily mail headline instructions you are probably on a terrorist watch list now and Arazi will have you deported tomorrow. Sorry
Last edited:
When things get drastic, lets look at it....a handful of deaths in a decade indicates the measures we have in place are sufficient for now, so thankfully your ideas will stay the preserve of your own wet dreams
This. I don't see why we suddenly need to bring draconian measures in and turn the uk into a police state. It appears to be working.
Because it's profitable to both keep people buying crappy newspapers/watch ads on crappy news sites when it's all lovably filled with fear and then it's profitable once the police is replaced with a private policing force instead once the idea of socialism falters into the abyss.
Iraq
I think you'll find it was American, British and other western bombs and bullets that took a horrific amount of innocent life.
Errr no you'll find the vast majority where killed by Iraqi's in bombings.
The western forces killed very few people at all.
Ahh the infernal belligerence which was so coincidental with the death of a working (though brutal) government, but i guess that's the Iraqi's fault though.
Yep it is the Iraqi's fault that they started suicide bombing each other.
I mean to blane anyone else is a terrifying disconnect
Anyone here old enough to remember growing up in the seventies and eighties in this country? The IRA?
They tried to make people feel terrified, create hysteria, pandemonium.
Nothing changes. Same old shiite. Different day.
I just refuse to give in and get bothered by it
They tried to make people feel terrified, create hysteria, pandemonium.
Nothing changes. Same old shiite. Different day.
I just refuse to give in and get bothered by it
Caporegime
Pointed that out to him earlier in the thread when he claimed the coalition had killed 100's of thousands in Iraq. Pointed out actually they were responsible for something like 13% of the deaths. The other 87% was by other Iraqi's and insurgents.
I even provided a nice neutral source for him. So he changed tact and started posting about hte number of civilians who have died in conflicts that the US were involved in since WW2.
aye jidt realised how far back i was in the thread
Associate
The whole situation is quite difficult to manage and I don't know what solution can be derived that'd solve the problem at hand with Islamic Extremists. You cannot sling everyone out of the country purely because they are on a list of potential terrorists. It is a shame we do not have more resources to investigate more in depth each and every name on the list but that's just how it is. I do think as a nation we need to toughen up on some things however. Some laws need addressing so that they are not so favourable to the types most of us as a nation detest.
Human Rights is used far too often by those who I believe have created the situation themselves by conducting an illegal activity. In certain circumstances human rights should be removed. The person knows what they are doing is illegal so if anything 'bad' were to happen to them well it's just tough, that was a risk they were willing to take by committing the crime.
Freedom of speech also needs to have an exception. As a nation I'd like to think that none of us agree with Islamic extremist views and laws, it simply has no place in society anywhere in our country. I would quite happily like to see a law released that states anyone found promoting Islamic Extremist views and laws or anyone that turns up to a demonstration promoting Islamic Extremist views is arrested, put on a plane and sent to the nearest hell hole where they practice Sharia law and continue their life there as they so wish it to be conducted here currently. Naturally their British Passport (if they have one) is to be removed from them too. I'd have no issues with this being done to any other nut promoting extremist views not relevant to the norm in our society.
What a big mess the world is turning into......
Human Rights is used far too often by those who I believe have created the situation themselves by conducting an illegal activity. In certain circumstances human rights should be removed. The person knows what they are doing is illegal so if anything 'bad' were to happen to them well it's just tough, that was a risk they were willing to take by committing the crime.
Freedom of speech also needs to have an exception. As a nation I'd like to think that none of us agree with Islamic extremist views and laws, it simply has no place in society anywhere in our country. I would quite happily like to see a law released that states anyone found promoting Islamic Extremist views and laws or anyone that turns up to a demonstration promoting Islamic Extremist views is arrested, put on a plane and sent to the nearest hell hole where they practice Sharia law and continue their life there as they so wish it to be conducted here currently. Naturally their British Passport (if they have one) is to be removed from them too. I'd have no issues with this being done to any other nut promoting extremist views not relevant to the norm in our society.
What a big mess the world is turning into......
Yes, absolutely. This guy is to Islam what Thomas Mair is to Brexiteers.Glad you put that last bit in, I was about to say - I'd not class say Daniel Hannan or Jacob Rees Mogg as being remotely similar.
Soldato
not an easy job certainly wouldn't be my choice for a career but someone does have to do it so good on her
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
i think the issue with human rights, and more importantly making exceptions, is as soon as we start doing that for one group it sets a precedence for others. whilst i agree that a ban on promoting hate speech would certainly give the police tools to help slow the growth of this sort of thing it opens the door further down the line for other sorts of bans.
its a slippery slope, especially when we start labeling people as sub-human and therefore not worth human rights- we know where the word "untermensch" leads
Indeed, Sadham (Like Assad, and indeed Gadaffi) was a brutal leader governing a country riven with religious tensions. It was only his iron rule that kept it all in check.
When "We" stuck our oar in, we allowed these tensions to rise to the surface and didn't have the stomach to take on the role of suppressing them. (We also interfered with Assads ability to do so, and indeed Gadaffis) Hence why we are where we are to day with ISIS etc
I remember back in 1989 arguing that all this was nonsense and frankly we should keep out of it.
So what if Iraq occupies Kuwait? (So what if they invaded Saudi for that matter, which they wouldn't have done for various reasons)
Just think how much better the world would be today had we just left well alone, Hussain had his new empire (including Kuwait) and Assad and Gadaffi had been left to quickly crush their respective rebels (as they would have done without external interference, Indeed, the rebellions would never have happened if it hadn't been for external encouragement and interference)
The worlds best interests would have been served by allowing secular states to gradually take over the Islamic world (Although, I would no more interfere in this process either) Our policy over the last, getting on for 30 nearly bloody years (In this context "Bloody" is used entirely correctly!), has been an utterly bizarre one of disrupting secular governments and allowing Jihadists to flourish.
What kind of insanity is this, really!
Please don't misquote me I never said 100's of thousands, that's the figure you chucked about
I said a horrific amount to which you then came back and claimed 15,000+ deaths!
Are you going to go on record and claim over 15,000 innocent civilian deaths isn't horrific ???
Iraq
I think you'll find it was American, British and other western bombs and bullets that took a horrific amount of innocent life.
And even in conflicts we are not directly involved in where do you think many of the bombs and weapons are bought from ??
But hey we never do anything wrong and are squeaky clean, god knows why these nutters hate us so much. Maybe they are mistaking us for someone else
I wonder if America has less of these problems from their own citizens because people are forced to swear allegiance to the flag and generally they have a very pro-American mind set from an early age. Where as we here it seems offensive to suggest people should have a sense of loyalty to the country that they're a citizen of. I bet there's millions of people who are UK citizens but feel absolutely no loyalty to the UK at all, you just cannot say the same about Americans.
Permabanned
Maybe there's something to be learnt for us here??
Well you have a short memory!!
Omar Mateen was born in America yet that didn't stop him slaughtering 49 people only a couple of years ago in America.
He said this on facebook:
Or maybe this American born chap:
He murdered 13 people in a terror attack
Last edited:
Soldato
A large part of the trigger for this has been our foreign policy over the years normally with the back drop of the theft of oil or other natural resources.
Our kick back (Trump and Brexit) against our perception of a foreign invasion has its roots in the same place that their resentment is. We should never have stepped a foot in the middle east.
We were ignorant and arrogant to believe that some of these countries are ready to accept a democracy or our version of civilization.
Some of the countries may never get there because the powers that be will never allow its people to stand up without being crushed. What option do we have? Either leave them to their own devices, and accept that its a gangland that we do not want to enter or go in hard to crush them.
We have tried with the second option and failed, there is also the issue of collateral damage to citizens that have nothing or want nothing to do with the current events.
Sure, we could sustain carpet bomb Iraq, Syria and wherever the hell they may be. From a military perspective there is no contest but the one way that we distinguish ourselves from these beasts is our conscience and concern for human rights. This would also trigger the muslims that currently live in the west. One of the core elements of a muslim is that they consider each and every one a brother (strange really when most of the violence that occurs is between Sunni and Shiite), this is sometimes why we have British citizens joining ISIS.
I was vocal about Trump's travel ban, I understood WHY he wants to do it. I believe that in his mind it was the only non violent way to stop the leak which would then allow him to try and deal with the damage/damp that was already in his country.
It had so many flaws though - really too many to list here, and to really execute this plan and to stop the criticism that he was looking after his business concerns or not choosing the countries where the terrorists had come from in the past he should have double downed and really made it into a 'muslim' ban.
However its a human rights cost that is too much to bear for many people. Is it ok to ban millions of people on the basis that a handful might start ramming cars into people?
Our kick back (Trump and Brexit) against our perception of a foreign invasion has its roots in the same place that their resentment is. We should never have stepped a foot in the middle east.
We were ignorant and arrogant to believe that some of these countries are ready to accept a democracy or our version of civilization.
Some of the countries may never get there because the powers that be will never allow its people to stand up without being crushed. What option do we have? Either leave them to their own devices, and accept that its a gangland that we do not want to enter or go in hard to crush them.
We have tried with the second option and failed, there is also the issue of collateral damage to citizens that have nothing or want nothing to do with the current events.
Sure, we could sustain carpet bomb Iraq, Syria and wherever the hell they may be. From a military perspective there is no contest but the one way that we distinguish ourselves from these beasts is our conscience and concern for human rights. This would also trigger the muslims that currently live in the west. One of the core elements of a muslim is that they consider each and every one a brother (strange really when most of the violence that occurs is between Sunni and Shiite), this is sometimes why we have British citizens joining ISIS.
I was vocal about Trump's travel ban, I understood WHY he wants to do it. I believe that in his mind it was the only non violent way to stop the leak which would then allow him to try and deal with the damage/damp that was already in his country.
It had so many flaws though - really too many to list here, and to really execute this plan and to stop the criticism that he was looking after his business concerns or not choosing the countries where the terrorists had come from in the past he should have double downed and really made it into a 'muslim' ban.
However its a human rights cost that is too much to bear for many people. Is it ok to ban millions of people on the basis that a handful might start ramming cars into people?