Shots fired outside parliament - Please refrain from speculative and antagonistic posts

[Gixer]

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

I agree however as humans remember we always have choice and as individuals we chose the route through life we wish to take. I do not see a problem with singling out groups that simply do not fit in with what we would class as living life as normal humans. If someone chooses to live away from that then they are welcome to go and live it somewhere else where it is accepted. There is a point where some things simply cannot be combined or coexist in the same place. Yes some people may well change their views later in life alas that is just tough they cannot come back to the UK. They should have thought about the choice they made a little more before making it. Initially there would unfortunately be some who were vulnerable and coerced into these extremist views that would end up being sent far away but once we rid the country of the scum that's here I'd hope that the amount of vulnerable coerced would greatly reduce. If we do not tackle the problem I fear it may worsen over time.

 

[Roar87]

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?

We didn't go to Iraq to give them Democracy, we went in to remove a dictator who had committed war crimes including genocide and who wasn't letting UN weapons inspectors in. Actually very valid reasons. Hind sight is 20/20 yes, and the situation now may be more or less the same or even worse, but our intentions weren't to kill innocent civilians and that has never been the case unlike terrorists and people like Saddam Hussein.

Had we not removed him you could equally now say, 'why have we not removed this brutal dictator who has killed all these people? We as the West should take responsibility and remove this evil man!'

 

[Vonhelmet]

Maybe there's something to be learnt for us here??

You want a leader like Saddam? You're deranged.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Without the ability to read peoples minds their isn't much else we can do without potentially punishing innocent decent people.

Also I think we need a little perspective, we have had about 5-6 murders due to Islamic extremism in the last 12 YEARS!
The police and secret services should be given the money and resources that they need so that they can continue to perform the excellent job they are doing, we should not allow the criminals to dictate the way we live our lives and treat each other!!

 

[Vonhelmet]

We didn't go to Iraq to give them Democracy, we went in to remove a dictator who had committed war crimes including genocide and who wasn't letting UN weapons inspectors in. Actually very valid reasons. Hind sight is 20/20 yes, and the situation now may be more or less the same or even worse, but our intentions weren't to kill innocent civilians and that has never been the case unlike terrorists and people like Saddam Hussein.

Had we not removed him you could equally now say, 'why have we not removed this brutal dictator who has killed all these people? We as the West should take responsibility and remove this evil man!'

Why don't we remove the countless other horrible dictators around the world? Why have we left Mugabe to it for decades? Regime change is a weak argument. We weren't in it for regime change, we were in it for a foothold in the Middle East and we cocked it up.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

lawl
Yeah we went into Iraq on humanitarian grounds!!
I guess not enough people were being slaughtered in Rwanda or Sudan for us to bother helping them
And people with your mindset have the cheek to call liberals naive

 

[Rifte]

We didn't go to Iraq to give them Democracy, we went in to remove a dictator who had committed war crimes including genocide and who wasn't letting UN weapons inspectors in. Actually very valid reasons. Hind sight is 20/20 yes, and the situation now may be more or less the same or even worse, but our intentions weren't to kill innocent civilians and that has never been the case unlike terrorists and people like Saddam Hussein.

Had we not removed him you could equally now say, 'why have we not removed this brutal dictator who has killed all these people? We as the West should take responsibility and remove this evil man!'

As I stated we were there to steal oil, or make great deals with the new regime that we aimed to install.

Our pursuit of 'democracy' is the Trojan Horse we use to complete the objectives.

 

[deuse]

Muslims will never get on with anyone other then their sect\tribe. You see them coming out the Islamic centre in
parts of Birmingham. And they are fighting each other in the road. The police can't do a thing as they will be called names.

Islam needs a leader fast.

 

[Dis86]

lawl
You can't compare a humanitarian mission where you enter as peacekeepers to stop a genocide (like we should have done in Rwanda and more recently Sudan) to that of an illegal war where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed.
What a ridiculous straw-man

And who killed those hundreds of thousands? Other Muslims!

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

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 ???

You raised the hundreds of thousands. It's there in writing.

 

[Roar87]

Why don't we remove the countless other horrible dictators around the world? Why have we left Mugabe to it for decades? Regime change is a weak argument. We weren't in it for regime change, we were in it for a foothold in the Middle East and we cocked it up.

lawl
Yeah we went into Iraq on humanitarian grounds!!
I guess not enough people were being slaughtered in Rwanda or Sudan for us to bother helping them
And people with your mindset have the cheek to call liberals naive

Chemical weapons are a huge line in the sand for us, they represent a risk to our national security if terrorists were to get hold of them. Saddam Hussein did use them in the past and wasn't allowing UN weapon inspectors in, irrespective of the fact that we didn't find any, that was a huge risk.
That's also why we were very close to going into Syria when they were used there. Maybe you don't appreciate the dangers of these weapons being used by terrorists in a populated area, you'd be looking at hundreds or thousands of deaths. Look at how lethal the chemical used on the North Korean defector recently was.

 

[deuse]

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.

Mateen had Afghan parents. He hated the US from early on. He was investigated twice by the FBI who slipped up.
Also he was expelled from Martin County High School after he celebrated the 9/11 attack and then continued to make other comments in classes as well.

90% the FBIs fault for closing the case against him, when they should have done something. Well that's my opinion.

 

[SlyReaper]

Mateen had Afghan parents. He hated the US from early on. He was investigated twice by the FBI who slipped up.
Also he was expelled from Martin County High School after he celebrated the 9/11 attack and then continued to make other comments in classes as well.

90% the FBIs fault for closing the case against him, when they should have done something. Well that's my opinion.

Very easy to say in hindsight. But even the FBI's resources are finite; they can't possibly scrutinise everyone who has ever popped up on their radar.

 

[Greebo]

Saw farage on Fox News saying that the London attack is exactly why trump is right with his Muslim travel ban (before he found out the guy was born in the uk). He also said that London has been brought to a standstill etc etc. Can't believe he gets paid to spout his lies.

 

[Roar87]

Saw farage on Fox News saying that the London attack is exactly why trump is right with his Muslim travel ban (before he found out the guy was born in the uk). He also said that London has been brought to a standstill etc etc. Can't believe he gets paid to spout his lies.

You act like it's an utterly crazy suggestion that people might travel from countries that are war torn and have large contingents of ISIS members and try and commit a terrorist attack in the West. What fools we are for banning travel from Libya, Syria and Somalia!

 

[TheVoice]

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.

"Less of these problems" despite rampant gun crime and frequent mass-shootings? How very patriotic.

You act like it's an utterly crazy suggestion that people might travel from countries that are war torn and have large contingents of ISIS members and try and commit a terrorist attack in the West. What fools we are for banning travel from Libya, Syria and Somalia!

What fools you are for trying; fortunately those with some common-sense have blocked it. Again.

 

[Roar87]

What fools you are for trying; fortunately those with some common-sense have blocked it. Again.

Common sense? It seems highly reasonable and pragmatic to restrict travel from countries that have a lot of people who want to commit attacks on the West.

 

[deuse]

Very easy to say in hindsight. But even the FBI's resources are finite; they can't possibly scrutinise everyone who has ever popped up on their radar.

Last year they got $8.4 billion. Yes that's $ billions. No excuse for failing.

 

[Werewolf]

Last year they got $8.4 billion. Yes that's $ billions. No excuse for failing.

Well except that they don't have the manpower to do everything that everyone wants of them, and that includes watching every single person who has ever come to their attention indefinitely.

So unless you want the FBI to say stop dealing with kidnappings, non Islamic terrorism (which is far more common in the US than Islamic terrorism), and the 1001 other things they do then they're never going to be able to watch everyone who has been reported as a potential threat because they're" muslim" or because they've got a darker skin colour and are reading that suspicious Islamic code stuff (or as the rest of the world calls it, mathematical equations).

They'll be like every intelligence agency in the world, they'll look at reported threats and rate them from basically "nothing we can find indicates a threat" to "call the SWAT team and Bomb squad in now", given how paranoid and idiotic some people are in reporting "suspicious activity" that is nothing of the sort (normal prayers, every day tasks, people attempting to catch up on their award winning economics work whilst waiting on an aircraft), there are probably far more people that have "come to the FBI's attention" than have ever, or ever will commit a serious crime.

 

[Arazi]

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!

Aye, i remember all this, people in that area have known nothing except death all around them for 30 years, for various reasons. It isnt over yet and will get a lot worse, i think parts of Europe will see some horrible times ahead.

 

[deuse]

Well except that they don't have the manpower to do everything that everyone wants of them, and that includes watching every single person who has ever come to their attention indefinitely.

So unless you want the FBI to say stop dealing with kidnappings, non Islamic terrorism (which is far more common in the US than Islamic terrorism), and the 1001 other things they do then they're never going to be able to watch everyone who has been reported as a potential threat because they're" muslim" or because they've got a darker skin colour and are reading that suspicious Islamic code stuff (or as the rest of the world calls it, mathematical equations).

They'll be like every intelligence agency in the world, they'll look at reported threats and rate them from basically "nothing we can find indicates a threat" to "call the SWAT team and Bomb squad in now", given how paranoid and idiotic some people are in reporting "suspicious activity" that is nothing of the sort (normal prayers, every day tasks, people attempting to catch up on their award winning economics work whilst waiting on an aircraft), there are probably far more people that have "come to the FBI's attention" than have ever, or ever will commit a serious crime.

They don't keep an eye them all the time...There are about 3 agencies that keep on eye on people other then the FBI.
And someone gets into trouble like that guy did, a agency in the county will be watching him.

It's the same if you go on holiday in the US HLS needs to know where you are and where you are going. If your late leaving
they will send state Troopers to find you. Also when you leave late HLS will haul you in.

It's the same for police. You have the county police\shariff then you have the state troopers.