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

[CaptainRAVE]

Can we speculate yet?

 

[dowie]

Different methods granted. But the same result. So why cant the propsoed rules about locking up "anyone spouting any extremist material that is designed to cause harm\death\destruction in this country in public or online then an instant full 2 year stretch inside, do it 3 times and you are away for 20 years" apply to the IRA for example?

we've tried locking up known republicans/IRA members en mass in the past - caused a bit of fall out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

I'd suspect that you'd see rather a lot of fall out from the UK muslim population too if we just interned a load of Islamists

 

[dowie]

IRA members weren't exactly renowned for broadcasting their identities.

the main players were well known to the security forces regardless

 

[Orionaut]

we've tried locking up known republicans/IRA members en mass in the past - caused a bit of fall out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

I'd suspect that you'd see rather a lot of fall out from the UK Muslim population too if we just interned a load of Islamists

Moderate Muslims dislike extreme Muslims just as much as anybody else does. (EG Ahmadiyya )

Moderate Muslims would not complain, they would understand the necessity. Anybody who would complain would not be a moderate Muslim and therefore should be interned/exiled too.

 

[dowie]

Moderate Muslims dislike extreme Muslims just as much as anybody else does. (EG Ahmadiyya )

Moderate Muslims would not complain, they would understand the necessity. Anybody who would complain would not be a moderate Muslim and therefore should be interned/exiled too.

that is a bit of a stretch and I think rather unlikely - how many people would you want to lock up then - not only islamists but anyone who might be angry at Islamists being locked up?

What about people angry at the locking up of people who are angry at Islamists being locked up?

It just doesn't work very well - it failed in Northern Ireland and it would likely fail here, you'd just turn more of the muslim community against the UK and towards the Islamists

even something as simple as the government's prevent strategy has faced a backlash from UK muslims, locking up a bunch of people would cause plenty more

 

[Dis86]

the main players were well known to the security forces regardless

That's true but they still weren't exactly singing about it in public. The rank and file members who carried out the attacks were largely anonymous.

 

[deuse]

perhaps giving the FBI several billion more might be better than giving it to the armed forces and becoming the country on earth with the most nukes?

And again you haven't done your home work. There are 35,037 permanent positions 13,074 special agents, 3,083 intelligence analysts, and 18,880 professional staff.
The FBI had another $47 million in the last 6 months. It's the bad detective work.

 

[dowie]

That's true but they still weren't exactly singing about it in public. The rank and file members who carried out the attacks were largely anonymous.

it isn't a big organisation, the players who carried out attacks were well known AFAIK, the whole organisation was full of informants and many members under surveillance at various times

that the security forces knew someone was likely being an attack and having enough evidence to prosecute them however are different things

 

[Greebo]

Because they didn't do that. Heck, it was incredibly difficult to prove someone was a member.

And again you haven't done your home work. There are 35,037 permanent positions 13,074 special agents, 3,083 intelligence analysts, and 18,880 professional staff.
The FBI had another $47 million in the last 6 months. It's the bad detective work.

Yes but clearly not enough to watch everybody who needs watching otherwise why does so many attacks come with "were known to the FBI but werent been watched anymore" Clearly $47 isnt enough and perhaps they should have a billion and buy one less nuke?

 

[Orionaut]

that is a bit of a stretch and I think rather unlikely - how many people would you want to lock up then - not only islamists but anyone who might be angry at Islamists being locked up?

What about people angry at the locking up of people who are angry at Islamists being locked up?

It just doesn't work very well - it failed in Northern Ireland and it would likely fail here, you'd just turn more of the muslim community against the UK and towards the Islamists

even something as simple as the government's prevent strategy has faced a backlash from UK muslims, locking up a bunch of people would cause plenty more

Just for fun.

1939 reloaded

William: German forces are rampaging across Europe slaughtering all who oppose them, We must declare war on Germany and stop them.

James: No, most Germans are peaceful, we cant declare War on Germany it would be unfair on the majority of peaceful Germans. It is only the minority who are members of the Nazi party who are the problem.

William: Ok, so for now at least we cannot declare War on Germany. At the very least we should take measures against the ex-pat German Nazis living in Britain.

James What do you mean.

William: Well there are German Nazi party organisations operating in most of our cities and they routinely have speakers who praise what the Nazi party is doing across Europe. We must stop this and intern or expel the known Nazi party members at least.

James: Oh no, we cannot do that. If we try to stop the German ex-pats from setting up and operating a Nazi party organisation in Britain we will offend the peaceful Germans and drive them to become Nazi party members. In any case many of the people you regard as German Ex-pats were born here so they aren’t in fact German at all (even the ones who are members or supporters of the German Nazi party) they are British through and through and it would be totally wrong to oppress their civil rights and freedom of political expression.

William: What about the attacks that British German Nazi party members are committing here in Britain. Many people have been killed and many more injured. Surely these must be seen as part of a wider military campaign against us?

James: Of course not, these are just random assaults by mentally ill and disadvantaged people. Simply a civilian criminal matter for the police to deal with.

And so on….!

How do you think people in 1939 would have regarded the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and how do you think they might have tried to deal with it?

 

[Werewolf]

And again you haven't done your home work. There are 35,037 permanent positions 13,074 special agents, 3,083 intelligence analysts, and 18,880 professional staff.
The FBI had another $47 million in the last 6 months. It's the bad detective work.

It's not "bad detective work", it's the realities of actually actively watching someone fully with minimal chance of them slipping something past you.

From memory the British Intelligence services have stated it takes something like 10 people minimum to watch a suspect full time.

Now, that 50k staff would be fully tied up in watching just 5k Islamic terrorist suspects, assuming that every single FBI employee was involved in nothing but watching them, with no need for any back office support (HR, IT, management), and with nothing else on their plate.
Modern technology makes it slightly easier to watch large numbers of people, but are effectively useless against people who have even very basic training on the risks of using electronic communications.

So the intelligence services will look into potential threats and reports and rate them depending on if there is no credible threat found, keep a general eye on them, or pull them in.
Given that when the intelligence services may end up having to do some checks on everyone a high priority suspect meets you very rapidly run out of man power.

There will be people who have been of "interest" to the FBI etc simply because they're distantly related to someone who is a known threat, or attended the same mosque, school or place of work, if those people don't do anything to raise suspicions the intelligence services will stop watching them, and in probably 99 cases out of 100 they'll never pop up on the radar again unless they happen to go to the wrong place at the wrong time, or some idiot panics about seeing someone who looks "islamic" and reports them as a threat.
I suspect the FBI probably has many hundreds of thousands of people who have been "of interest" at one point or another, with tens of thousands who came to their attention due to things like suspicions in regards to potential for terrorism.

 

[Rroff]

From memory the British Intelligence services have stated it takes something like 10 people minimum to watch a suspect full time.

Just a reasonable amount of surveillance on one person will tie up loads of people as unlike the movies you can't easily watch someone with 1 person without them fairly quickly noticing unless they find a reason to be frequently in that person's life.

 

[dowie]

How do you think people in 1939 would have regarded the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and how do you think they might have tried to deal with it?

rather a different scenario

as already posted we've got a more recent internment example that didn't work very well in Northern Ireland

I'm not sure I follow your other quote - are you advocating that we declare war on 'Islam'?

 

[garnett]

Just for fun.

1939 reloaded

William: German forces are rampaging across Europe slaughtering all who oppose them, We must declare war on Germany and stop them.

James: No, most Germans are peaceful, we cant declare War on Germany it would be unfair on the majority of peaceful Germans. It is only the minority who are members of the Nazi party who are the problem.

William: Ok, so for now at least we cannot declare War on Germany. At the very least we should take measures against the ex-pat German Nazis living in Britain.

James What do you mean.

William: Well there are German Nazi party organisations operating in most of our cities and they routinely have speakers who praise what the Nazi party is doing across Europe. We must stop this and intern or expel the known Nazi party members at least.

James: Oh no, we cannot do that. If we try to stop the German ex-pats from setting up and operating a Nazi party organisation in Britain we will offend the peaceful Germans and drive them to become Nazi party members. In any case many of the people you regard as German Ex-pats were born here so they aren’t in fact German at all (even the ones who are members or supporters of the German Nazi party) they are British through and through and it would be totally wrong to oppress their civil rights and freedom of political expression.

William: What about the attacks that British German Nazi party members are committing here in Britain. Many people have been killed and many more injured. Surely these must be seen as part of a wider military campaign against us?

James: Of course not, these are just random assaults by mentally ill and disadvantaged people. Simply a civilian criminal matter for the police to deal with.

And so on….!

How do you think people in 1939 would have regarded the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and how do you think they might have tried to deal with it?

James is editor of the Daily Mail, right?

Spoiler

 

[Amp34]

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!'

That's it really the case at all. Weapons inspectors were allowed in, and in fact the reports they gave were accurate, Iraq had no WMD.

During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annanto lead the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment.

Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[4] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[5]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "so far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons [of mass destruction], only a small number of empty chemical munitions."[6]

In 2004 Blix gave a statement that "there were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction."[7]

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD programcame to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration,[8] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.[9]

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are ******** who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media."[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.22crisis.22_.282002.E2.80.932003.29

As an example. Blix was very much against the invasion. WMDs were used as an exciuse, alongside the war crimes and genocide that had occurred decades earlier.

The real reason will probably never be fully known, but religion (Bush claiming god told him to do it) and geopolitics may well be included, along with finishing what his father started?

People were being very clear what was going to happen after the invasion prior to it happening, unfortunately they were ignored due to the gung-ho atttitude of certain generals and commanders, hindsight was not needed, it just proved what many had already known.

 

[robfosters]

They couldn't have done anything. They were used to the Luftwaffe who came over in planes that enabled us to give a warning before they struck. This is totally different. It would have been exactly the same as we do now. Stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on, all that business. Only they would have had more to deal with as the security services were nothing like today's, and would have probably snuffed out only 10% of the potential attacks that we do today.

 

[Amp34]

We could start with all the one's who are back in this country after travelling to the likes of Syria\Libya\Yemen\Iraq\Afghanistan etc for nothing other than to learn to kill\Injure, fight and cause mayhem etc in this country or elsewhere when they come back, get rid of them first, as for the one's who are still over there, let them die, if they don't die then they don't return back to the UK, they stay in which ever hellhole they are currently in.

Then anyone spouting any extremist material that is designed to cause harm\death\destruction in this country in public or online then an instant full 2 year stretch inside, do it 3 times and you are away for 20 years.

That's a start, we need a government with the balls to implement it.

e: I will also add the same kind of things need to happen in Europe too.

That's not far off what is happening now. Where there is EVIDENCE that someone has been fighting for ISIS or spouting extremist material then they are arrested, charged and jailed/deported (depending on whether they are UK citizens or foreign nationals).

We don't need a government with the balls to implement it, they already have.

If you want to go further and start arresting and deporting people that haven't been convicted of a crime then that's a very different matter and goes back to our conversation earlier in the thread...

 

[Orionaut]

rather a different scenario

as already posted we've got a more recent internment example that didn't work very well in Northern Ireland

I'm not sure I follow your other quote - are you advocating that we declare war on 'Islam'?

Don't know that this is a different scenario at all, we are faced with an enemy ideology that is totally inimical to everything that we believe. We also face physical invasion on a massive scale (Indeed it is already happening)

Wasn't a quote as such, just something that I had previously written and putting it in "Quotes" seemed like a good way of presenting it.

In all honesty I am as torn about "Islam" and "Muslims" as I would have been had I been a young middle class man in 1939 who went to Oxbridge in the mid 30's with his good friends "Otto" and "Hans" only to find himself a few years later on the opposite side of horrible battle lines (There is a reason why, at least in the early part of the War why captured enemy pilots had a drink with their captors in the officers mess before they were taken off to POW camp. They were basically all people who were old School/Uni friends)

As I have already intimated, I know a lot of Ahamadis. Unless anybody can come along and say otherwise. I do not believe that any Ahmadi ever, anywhere has ever been implicated in any sort of terror attack ever (If anybody has any evidence to contradict this, please supply link)

Yes, there are peaceful Muslims. They are called Ahmadis!

However, most are not! Sorry but that is the truth of it.

And the sooner we as a society bite this particular bullet and really face the consequences of this the better.

This really is just the latest skirmish in a 1300 year old War for dominance! And one that in the past we really haven't done to well in and even now are actually losing!

 

[Orionaut]

James is editor of the Daily Mail, right?

Spoiler

ISTR that many of Mosley's BUF people were some of the first people to join up once war was declared. They may have been sympathetic towards the Nazis before War was declared, but ultimately Nationalism trumped this and they would always fight for their country against any enemy, even one they were previously sympathetic towards.

 

[Amp34]

Losing? If we consider it a 1300 year old war as you say then the fact we have invaded and "planted" supporting leaders in most countries in the Middle East, while incurring very little damage to our own countries would suggest we are winning quite dramatically, rather than losing.

Also what is this massive invasion you talk of? Are there hundreds of thousands of Islamists invading the UK or Europe? No. There are hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war zones certainly, but the vast, vast majority aren't extremists. Conflating the two because they are all "Muslim", or not European is shady at best.

We are not at war with Islam, if we were then perhaps the terrorists and those that think ill of the west would have a more legitimate reason to launch attacks against us. It would also give even more legitimacy to any British Muslim that decided they would side with Islam and launch an attack. If you put someone in a terrible position like that then dont be surprised if they make a decision that comes back to haunt you...

We are supposed to be better than "them". Forcing people to convert from something that they believe in and adhere to peacefully and with no real difference to the rest of us (the vast majority) makes us no different to those we are against. The whole point of ideologies like ISIS is to force those that think differently to either leave, die or "convert" to their way of thinking. How are we better than them in any way if we end up doing the same? I for one would not like to live in a country that did that, that's the point if being a free country.