Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***

[Amp34]

No one has any issue with dealing with people on a watch list. The issue is when "dealing" with them involves throwing away centuries of judicial history, especially when we do t know why people are on there or how many.

If there are people on a watch list thatabre a particular worry then deal with them legally - collect evidence and try/convict them. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them yet then collect more.

Engaging with the Islamic community, although it has its faults (such as prevent), seems to be working in some ways because people are reporting these people prior to them committing acts. Pretty much every attack has been perpetuated by people already known to the police, with people either notifying them in the past about their worries or reporting them at the time (such as the guy with the knives a few weeks ago).

Certainly more funding to the security services and police (perhaps take it from the mass data collection budget) so they can target and monitor those on the list is a reasonable idea. Locking thousands up without trial is not...

The current rate of deaths, although reprehensible, is just not enough to warrant such a destruction of our democratic laws. You'd probably save more lives if you just rounded up everyone on "gang" list for example, yet no one is suggesting we suspend our judicial system for that are they?

You're not a "nazi" because you're suggesting doing something about people on a watch list. You're a "nazi" because you're suggesting tactics used largely by dictatorial regimes and quasi democracies to quell dissent and remove people that are considered "unwanted". Add a little bit of xenophobia/islamaphobia into the mix (specific to certain posters insisting it should only affect a certain type of terrorist watchlist) and you have your reasons.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Jeremy Corbyn once again absolutely right, in this speech from 2003:

'Thousands more deaths in Iraq will not make things right, it will set off a spiral of conflict of hate, of misery, of desperation that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations.'

This man has always been on the right side of history (no he had nothing to do with the IRA, that's right wing media spin), he is the man to go forward with in this country, his actions, party and policies will greatly reduce terrorism. We have tried the 'other way' of doing things, and its just not stopped, 15 years of blair/tory rule has led to what happened recently, I say its time to do things differently, we need to stop fighting wars in countries nothing to do with us for a start, its just logic.

 

[V F]

Who keeps leaking that info over to them though? We never used to see this kind of information before. It seems crazy that this sort of stuff if in the press already! Is this all because of Trump and his loose administration?

Obama's people are still there. One of the things Obama snuck through before he left.

 

[LOAM]

Some pretty gruesome descriptions being broadcast on sky this evening.

 

[V F]

Some pretty gruesome descriptions being broadcast on sky this evening.

The Campaign? Or was this before that?

 

[dalehitchy1]

It almost feels as though there's some sort of paralysis in terms of how to act.

Anybody who suggests any sort of action against people on terrorism watch lists, seems to be deemed a nazi. But as I imagine the authorities scooping up bits of children and placing them into evidence bags, combined with a dose of cold hearted reality - I can't help but think something drastic needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.

The alternative is to stand strong, united in the face of terrorism - It feels nice - but it doesn't do anything in reality. It seems to me that this has been the standard procedure over the years, from Bataclan to Charlie Hebdo to Westminster - but it hasn't helped, and now we're told that more carnage is 'imminent'

Engaging with the Islamic community doesn't seem to work, government strategies such as 'prevent' seem to cause more alienation and distrust, governments are also terrible at changing people's behaviour - so it seems only natural that trying to engage with the Islamic community is likely to fail, from both sides, perhaps due to a combination of government incompetence meeting a hard-nosed culture that doesn't want to be told how to act, let alone expect it's community members to grass each other up to 'the man'

Making suggestions to take what would be 'preemptive action' against people on watch lists, does seem authoritarian, it does seem harsh and risks creating more division and causing more problems, but I'm struggling to see meaningful alternatives, other than more of the same.

Why do people exaggerate what liberal people have said. As a person who is generally left wing, I am in full support of combating terrorism. However, I am against locking up family members who are completely innocent as someone suggested here before. As it turns out, in this particular case the family knew, and they should be punished accordingly.

As for a longer term strategy, well I am not sure. Is going to bomb a country and killing loads of innocents along with it going to help? Im not so sure. In fact I can imagine it making things worse. The many people who are branded 'liberal looney left' just because they dont want to make things worse and innocents to die. Thats why a decent soloution cannot be had.

 

[LOAM]

The Campaign? Or was this before that?

I might be slightly behind, it was live paused but the were describing what happened to the bomber's body. Hes legs apparently remained where he detonated it, his upper torso flung 10's of metres. Bomb was on his back according to "experts".

 

[Rroff]

Jeremy Corbyn once again absolutely right

It is easy to be "right" it is much harder to have actual, workable, real world solutions and its categorically provable that this goes much deeper than some arguably misguided wars in the Middle East.

 

[dowie]

This man has always been on the right side of history (no he had nothing to do with the IRA, that's right wing media spin), he is the man to go forward with in this country.

No it isn't just media spin, it is fact that he supported and sympathised with the IRA - he was even arrested protesting in front of a trial of a terrorist who murdered civilians in terror attacks in this country. Not to mention sharing a stage in the Republic with a man who was at the time wanted in the U.K. for murdering a British Army officer.

He referred to Hamas and Hezbolla, two Islamist groups that have regularly carried out suicide attacks like this, as 'friends'.

To say he's always been on the right side or to try and reinvent his IRA supporting past as merely some dialogue aimed at attempting peace. There is a big difference between establishing dialogue and actively going along to rallies, advocating directly in support of terrorists - strangely he didn't establish any dialogue with loyalist or unionist groups.

 

[Felon]

No one has any issue with dealing with people on a watch list. The issue is when "dealing" with them involves throwing away centuries of judicial history, especially when we do t know why people are on there or how many.

If there are people on a watch list thatabre a particular worry then deal with them legally - collect evidence and try/convict them. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them yet then collect more.

Engaging with the Islamic community, although it has its faults (such as prevent), seems to be working in some ways because people are reporting these people prior to them committing acts. Pretty much every attack has been perpetuated by people already known to the police, with people either notifying them in the past about their worries or reporting them at the time (such as the guy with the knives a few weeks ago).

Certainly more funding to the security services and police (perhaps take it from the mass data collection budget) so they can target and monitor those on the list is a reasonable idea. Locking thousands up without trial is not...

The current rate of deaths, although reprehensible, is just not enough to warrant such a destruction of our democratic laws. You'd probably save more lives if you just rounded up everyone on "gang" list for example, yet no one is suggesting we suspend our judicial system for that are they?

You're not a "nazi" because you're suggesting doing something about people on a watch list. You're a "nazi" because you're suggesting tactics used largely by dictatorial regimes and quasi democracies to quell dissent and remove people that are considered "unwanted". Add a little bit of xenophobia/islamaphobia into the mix (specific to certain posters insisting it should only affect a certain type of terrorist watchlist) and you have your reasons.

I'd agree that locking thousands of people up without trial is just totally unworkable, it can't be done, I get that and wasn't really suggesting it tbh, the thoughts I had were really around how we do more with the intelligence.

Taking funding away from the mass data collection budget and using it for real monitoring of people on lists, seems like a better idea for sure - perhaps tagging them like we do with young and youth offenders etc, or something similar but less intrusive.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So have you signed up to join the army and take the fight to ISIS?

Sorry no, he cant, ive got him signed up for a spud picking job as soon as we don't have enough immigrants from elsewhere in europe

 

[Rroff]

I'd agree that locking thousands of people up without trial is just totally unworkable, it can't be done, I get that and wasn't really suggesting it tbh, the thoughts I had were really around how we do more with the intelligence.

Taking funding away from the mass data collection budget and using it for real monitoring of people on lists, seems like a better idea for sure - perhaps tagging them like we do with young and youth offenders etc, or something similar but less intrusive.

Taking more steps to stop concentrations of immigrants living exclusively in areas, etc. and increasing efforts for wider integration along with far more restrictions on people travelling to and from war zones or countries linked to war zones would go a long way alone - even though it would mean battering some social justice/human rights stuff aside.

 

[titaniumx3]

Why is it always some scumbag loser who has suddenly found new meaning in his life through Islam? They always have some dodgy history behind before becoming radicalised. I bet this scumbag was piece of **** before he suddenly became 'religious'. The entirety of ISIS and their kin seem to be full of these loser scum, who can't do anything with their life so use the strictest possible version of Islam to validate their **** existence on this planet.

 

[One More Solo]

I said it was when I lived in Gatley. Cheadle and Gatley are changed beyond recognition these days, with many of the residents dressed more for the Pakistan and Bangladesh foothills, rather than a once quaint Manchester suburb. I can count the dozens of friends and family who once lived in the area, and who remain on one hand now, such was the areas rapid demographic change. It's no surprise Didsbury is now associated with a child murdering terrorist either, it's also suffered major population change in the last ten years, with once lovely, grand Victorian houses now more profitable dilapidated student bedsits, and with a large college that seems to attract foreign students who use it as a foothold to get into the UK and then disappear. I went to school in Fallowfield and there's absolutely no surprise it's now on the terrorist map either. It's probably Manchester's equivalent of Birmingham's infamous Kings Heath.

Not that anyone buys this nonsense (surely?!) but I live within 10 minutes of all of these areas and I can categorically say this is total ****. Fallowfield is a typical student area, and has been for as long as I've been coming to Manchester, while Cheadle, Gatley and Didsbury remain among the more affluent Manchester suburbs. You just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

 

[TwsT]

Why is it always some scumbag loser who has suddenly found new meaning in his life through Islam? They always have some dodgy history behind before becoming radicalised. I bet this scumbag was piece of **** before he suddenly became 'religious'. The entirety of ISIS and their kin seem to be full of these loser scum, who can't do anything with their life so use the strictest possible version of Islam to validate their **** existence on this planet.

Well, I suspect that is how they recruit people, they aren't exactly going to pick up strong successful and popular people. They prey on the lost and the weak, they provide them with a reason for their suffering then they foster and condition a hatred.

 

[dalehitchy1]

I'd agree that locking thousands of people up without trial is just totally unworkable, it can't be done, I get that and wasn't really suggesting it tbh, the thoughts I had were really around how we do more with the intelligence.

Taking funding away from the mass data collection budget and using it for real monitoring of people on lists, seems like a better idea for sure - perhaps tagging them like we do with young and youth offenders etc, or something similar but less intrusive.

What you just said I would be all for.

So I dont get this 'liberal looney left' crap that people put out. As if its the left wing fault that things have gotten this way. Its just another media spin to blame it on someone else other than the government.

I bet 99.99999 percent of left wing voters would be for exactly what you just said.

 

[Deleted member 68110]

What you just said I would be all for.

So I dont get this 'liberal looney left' crap that people put out. As if its the left wing fault that things have gotten this way. Its just another media spin to blame it on someone else other than the government.

I bet 99.99999 perfect of left wing voters would be for exactly what you just said.

The perpetrators are always xenophobic rightwingers.

 

[Skunkworks]

Remember these people on the watch list are generally made up of people that gone to Syria and fought for IS. Not exactly innocent people after all.

It boggles my mind that people who went to fight for ISIS have freely strolled back into the UK and are wandering our streets. Anyone who wants to should be allowed to leave, but it should be one-way.

 

[kully1972]

These extremists have probably tortured and decapitated people in Syria. Their scriptures advocate as much pain as possible to the 'disbelievers'.
True animals.

 

[Trusty]

It boggles my mind that people who went to fight for ISIS have freely strolled back into the UK and are wandering our streets. Anyone who wants to should be allowed to leave, but it should be one-way.

EU init. We don't have control