[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

jimjam - Member
So your tactic would be?

It is not nice, but if we are being pragmatic and want to live in a world where we can all, irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, go about our lives without the need to be armed (a frightening though, not least because of many people's ineptitude with vehicles which 'only' travel at tens of miles per hour) or worried about random attacks, someone has to do the wet work on our behalf.

Pigface - Member
Vietnam??????? WTF

My initial reaction was to post the Danish cartoons on my Facebook but it occoured to me that to do so would be to insult many including friends as a blow against a small group of random nutters who claim to share their faith but who ironically enough believe their God and his religion are two weak to shrug off a few line drawings.
htatp://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/481653-paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-cartoon.html
The Sun is already milking this for further erosion of our freedoms.

[i]Obviously no cartoon ever justifies violence but I also don't see how reproducing racist caricatures of Arabs is helping anyone.[/i]

Today, it's saying to anyone who thinks that murder will prevent publication that it won't work, that in fact the information and images that they were trying to suppress will just be more widely viewed.

Tomorrow, you're probably right.

Brilliant from Steve Bell! As ever!

I'd imagine he was motivated by the uncomfortable looking experience of having to sit next to the former leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (the supposed 'moderate' Muslims we keep hearing so much about) on Newsnight last night. Whose weasely, half-arsed condemnation went along the lines of 'we condemn violence, but....."

.....then went on to basically say, in not so many words, that if you insult Islam then you deserve everything you get, and this is what you can expect.

So not really a condemnation at all then? Hurray for the 'moderates' eh? 🙄

Not to arrest and detain in the first place, but rather to disappear them as quietly as possible.
It is not nice, but if we are being pragmatic and want to live in a world where we can all, irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, go about our lives

I want to live in a world where people aren't "disappeared" without trial.

Hurray for the 'moderates' eh?

Nah, it's "Hurray for people who need feeble excuses to rant and make crass generalisations on internet forums."

Not to arrest and detain in the first place, but rather to disappear them as quietly as possible.

Ah the Jean Charles de Menezes approach

Digga what you are suggesting is truly terrifying. What we need to fight fascism is to be more fascist? How many innocent people would it be ok to kill to carry out your 'wet work'. You sick ****er.

It's pretty obvious that this kind of moronic reaction is exactly what the terrorists want too.

It's going to take a long ol' time to disappear all these guys. I hope we're prepared for the non-linear nature of another "war" for another generation.

binners - Member
So not really a condemnation at all then? Hurray for the 'moderates' eh?

Not a view I personally subscribe to - I believe the reality is vastly more complex - but nonetheless, there can be no two ways; people either live in the West by our laws, or otherwise leave or stay and should be made to face the consequences of their words and actions.

digga

Not to arrest and detain in the first place, but rather to disappear them as quietly as possible.

It is not nice, but if we are being pragmatic and want to live in a world where we can all, irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, go about our lives without the need to be armed (a frightening though, not least because of many people's ineptitude with vehicles which 'only' travel at tens of miles per hour) or worried about random attacks, someone has to do the wet work on our behalf.

That's retarded I'm afraid. When you "disappear" them all, what do you think their friends, their families, their communities will do?

grum - Member
Digga what you are suggesting is truly terrifying. What we need to fight fascism is to be more fascist? How many innocent people would it be ok to kill to carry out your 'wet work'. You sick ****.

It's pretty obvious that this kind of moronic reaction is exactly what the terrorists want too

The world is not all nice, woolly and co-operative. I hope none of us ever has to experience what those victims in Paris yesterday went through, but it is fairly clear that current means are ineffective in preventing a tiny minority of lunatics from oppressing the peaceful majority.

.....then went on to basically say, in not so many words,

So he didn't actually say it then, and you're putting words into his mouth.

people either live in the West by our laws

Yeah, damn right. And if they don't, we'll go to their countries and kill 'em all...when the chips are down, we don't care about no laws.

jimjam - Member

That's retarded I'm afraid. When you "disappear" them all, what do you think their friends, their families, their communities will do?

Anyone would think there are millions of extremists (if this is the case, then surely even more drastic action is required?) but in fact there are relatively few.

Do you think we can reason with and rehabilitate them? Has this worked so far?

a key factor in their decision to declare peace.

😆

Yeah, we beat 'em...we beat 'em good man. Stupid RaRas...we didn't have to concede no political ground or accept that nearly half the population of a country might actually be needing a bit of determination in how it's run. We even let another country have a say FFS. Yeah man. We beat them proper good. We was awesomez.

To correct my bad link above
http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/481653-paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-cartoon.html

people either live in the West by our laws

Our laws, like not torturing people and executing those suspected of crimes. You're an idiot, frankly - but a scary idiot.

Do you think we can reason with and rehabilitate them?

We can try, but we'll have to start a little closer to home.

Has this worked so far?

No, I don't think so. We skipped the reasoning bit.

Fighting terror with terror (and that is what "disappearances" are) makes us worse than them.

So he didn't actually say it then, and you're putting words into his mouth.

Watch it yourself. Its on BBC iplayer. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xtl0r/newsnight-07012015 ]Here you go[/url]. I just summarised. There were more words involved, but thats what he was saying.

It was like when that expenses fraud Tory MP did her famous 6 second non-apology in parliament last year. Where she had to apologise, but actually didn't.

It was literally' I know I have to condemn violence, so I will go through the motions of that......', but then couldn't help himself, and went on with a thinly veiled justification for it all. Like I said, to summarise.... that if you insult Islam, then this is what happens. So if you don't want this type of thing to happen, then don't insult Islam

And this is the 'moderate' view, is it?

As condemnation goes, it wasn't one.

As a defence of freedom of speech, It most definitely wasn't one.

Feel free to keep wringing your hands though.....

bencooper - Member
Fighting terror with terror (and that is what "disappearances" are) makes us worse than them.

grum - Member
Our laws, like not torturing people and executing those suspected of crimes. You're an idiot, frankly - but a scary idiot.

Feel free to keep wringing your hands though.....

Feel free to keep ranting.

Have you recommended the nuclear option yet?

Its hardly ranting, is it Bravissimo? I'm merely pointing out that this self-proclaimed, supposed 'moderate' viewpoint didn't look like any definition of 'moderate' that I'd recognise.

Because it basically ended up justifying violence in circumstances deemed to be offensive to one particular group of peoples beliefs, by those people. Theres a word for that. Its fascism.

Unless you can point out to me where the exception clause is in our constitution that only applies to that one group of people, who, in certain circumstances, are now entirely justified in killing people

digga

Read up on the formation of ISIS. Then also read up on the intelligence infiltration and operations against the IRA - a key factor in their decision to declare peace.

Please, do educate us on how covert operations and shoot to kill policies by the SAS and security forces defeated the IRA. While you're at it could you balance or weigh up the success of these operations and the handful IRA volunteers killed vs the massive propaganda coup and recruitment drive it gave the IRA. Trying to defeat terrorists with terror tactics just doesn't work I'm afraid, you just do the recruiters work for them, and you radicalise otherwise moderate people.

digga
Same as usual. they would not know who, where, how why. Calling cards won't be left.

You sound like a 15 year old who's read too many Andy McNabb books. Wet work your arse. "They would not know" but some tosser on the internet knows all about it. You are deluded or trolling. Which is it.

Good straw man - no, I don't think terrorists should be free to run around killing innocent people. But I don't think "disappearing" people is the way to solve the problem.

And stop using that euphemism - you're talking about kidnapping a person, executing them and burying them in an unmarked grave without trial.

Who decides who gets disappeared? Do you completely trust the government and security services to make these kinds of decisions?

You are deluded or trolling. Which is it.

Tbh, I assumed trolling, But then he got a bit upset with grum...so maybe deluded. 😯

bencooper - Member
Who decides who gets disappeared? Do you completely trust the government and security services to make these kinds of decisions?

I repeatedly asked what other people suggest might be the solution, how we can weed out (or at least weaken) the terrorist minority from the midst of western society and no one has provided a single solitary suggestion. Just criticism of my own opinion.

Failing to act now essentially condemns many more innocents to become collateral damage of a failed strategy.

That you don't agree with me does not bother me and I am happy to debate, but turning your disagreement into an ad hominem attack is puerile. Try better or, perhaps make a constructive suggestion as to the way forward you see fit.

I've already dealt with the gaping logical and moral fallacies in your arguments - so I think I'm free to give my opinion too.

The way forward I would see is to broadly carry on as are, but put an end to illegal wars in Muslim countries, kidnapping and torture of suspects, and put pressure on to create a fair and workable solution for Israel and Palestine. I suspect we'd see a huge decline in support for Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps also international sanctions against Saudi Arabia, who are the main funders/promoters of worldwide terrorism. Except they are such wonderful customers of our weapons so it's pretty unlikely.

Tragic as these events are, the vast majority of people in the west are almost entirely unaffected by terrorism (unlike those in some of the countries we've invaded/made worse) so why do some think we need a step change in how we deal with it? Sadly there will always be some nutters who manage to achieve their aims. As I already posted many of the terrorist attacks in the US have been carried out by white supremacists/right wing nutters. I don't recall anyone suggesting executing them en masse.

So a society where anyone can be "disappeared" by the security services is better than a society where random nutcases can occasionally kill people?

Actually, we'd just end up with both.

@Grum - Or we could just stop buying their oil until they helped bring around radical changes in Middle Eastern society, at which point we would be happy to trade with them again.

s I already posted many of the terrorist attacks in the US have been carried out by white supremacists/right wing nutters. I don't recall anyone suggesting executing them en masse

Not forgetting Breivik.

Binners - whereabouts roughly in Newsnight is the bit you're on about? 'Hand-wringing' is a bit of a meaningless insult usually thrown around when people don't really have an argument BTW.

FWIW I'm fully in favour of freedom of speech with no exceptions and no cartoon could ever justify violence - I still don't think racist cartoons are cool though. Freedom of speech does include the freedom to be a dick but just because you can....

Disappearing people? Murder squads? Argentine Junta anyone? Be very careful what you wish for people. Once you go down this road there's no turning back.

@grum
Agree with most of what you said there. The tactics and strategies deployed by 'us', the West have been poor, wrong (IMHO illegal on many counts) and a highly effective tool for extremist recruiters.

As I've already said, the mass detention tactic was a failure of epic proportions - to which the rise of ISIS is attributable.

I think we need to be careful about offering potential 'excuses' for extremism, although again agree that situations such as Palestine are hugely unhelpful.

The tricky bit though, is how do we deal with the extremists in situ? The ones who are here, very often born here, who hold the radical, terrorist views on which they wish to act? I really don't see any effective means - that the timeframe of outcomes from the above changes in foreign policy would be sufficiently rapid to prevent many hundreds more deaths from random attacks.

Freedom of speech does include the freedom to be a dick but just because you can....

Thats exactly what it means. As this forum is ample testament too 😉

There are no exceptions. Its all or nothing. And when one group tries, by use of violence, to insert an exception, for their benefit, then they need to be told in no uncertain terms to do one!

The tricky bit though, is how do we deal with the extremists in situ? The ones who are here, very often born here, who hold the radical, terrorist views on which they wish to act?

So your solution for these disaffected young men isn't to wonder why they've got teh views they do, and try to counter that kind of extremism, your solution is to take them away from their families and execute them?

How does that prevent the next generation of young men growing up feeling they aren't connected to society?

Do you only target brown people who download dodgy videos from the internet, or do you also execute white people who say something a bit racist on Facebook?

digga

As I've already said, the mass detention tactic was a failure of epic proportions - to which the rise of ISIS is attributable.

No. The illegal invasion of Iraq, based on lies an misinformation is the event to which the rise of ISIS is attributable. Long before "Operation Iraqi Freedom" Commentators and critics of the war had predicted that the removal of Saddam, the destruction of the country's infrastructure, the slaughter of it's citizens and the inevitable withdrawal by British and American forces would have a destabilizing effect on the country and the middle east, and would create opportunities for groups such as ISIS to flourish. How could they possibly have known 🙄

Guy on the BBC news right now making some good points about what he termed 'medieval blasphemy taboos' being discussed and modified to suit modern times, claiming Muslims need to accept that folk will poke fun at religions the world over, just as they themselves make fun of other religions.

His first point is the way forward for change and I actually believe it will be the way it all pans out. How long it takes is anyone's guess...

bencooper - Member
So your solution for these disaffected young men isn't to wonder why they've got teh views they do, and try to counter that kind of extremism, your solution is to take them away from their families and execute them?

How does that prevent the next generation of young men growing up feeling they aren't connected to society?

Do you only target brown people who download dodgy videos from the internet, or do you also execute white people who say something a bit racist on Facebook?

As for how or why I think things need to be done, the parallel with the intelligence and military operations which led to the end of the IRA are a basis:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z2wyvcw

However, you have still neatly avoided an actual proposal, deciding only to offer criticism.

jimjam - Member
No. The illegal invasion of Iraq, based on lies an misinformation is the event to which the rise of ISIS is attributable.

Said by just about any 'muslim' on any radio phone in in response to yet another terrorist atrocity....

"I condemn these attacks BUT...".

I thought Newsnight was excellent last night. The leader of the Council of Muslims was very chilling, his "deunciation" was lame in the extreme.

@Northwind ISIS and Shia / Sunni sectarian violence is killing far more Muslims than is the West. The policeman executed on the ground was an Arab. To describe the West's action in the Middle East as anti-Muslim is nonsense, we've heard many justifications from politically motivated regime change to oil. It is only those who the West is acting against that try and claim the action is anti Muslim in order to stoke up further violence.

The quotation from the Arch Bishop in Raqqa is very telling, our liberal Western values are inconsistent with those against which we are fighting.

There has been another gun battle in Paris this morning

digga

Here you go: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Jesus wept. Yes, I understand ISIS members met in prison. In an American prison. In Iraq.

digga
As for how or why I think things need to be done, the parallel with the intelligence and military operations which led to the end of the IRA are a basis:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z2wyvcw

Unsurprisingly, your knowledge of Northern Ireland can be summed up by little more than a few bullet points.

It is only those who the West is acting against that try and claim the action is anti Muslim in order to stoke up further violence.

Yeah, we're just sticking up for ourselves.

The quotation from the Arch Bishop in Raqqa is very telling, our liberal Western values are inconsistent with those against which we are fighting.

Liberal western values like not illegally invading countries, not kidnapping people, not torturing people, and not summarily executing people?

As for how or why I think things need to be done, the parallel with the intelligence and military operations which led to the end of the IRA are a basis:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z2wyvcw

If you think the IRA is gone you are naive.

That timeline doesn't consider the years of history that went before it.

The IRA were not "defeated". They didn't "win" but they never "lost" either.

As the Catholic population increases and the Loyalist decreases, it is only a matter of time before NI becomes part of Eire.

Besides, the IRA only wanted a United Ireland and did not say they wanted to overthrow the whole of Western Civilization, unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS etc. To compare them is not really realistic.

It's a very fragile religion which cannot accept a little criticism and satire, which Islam (or at least many of its followers) does not seem to be able to do.

I thought Newsnight was excellent last night. The leader of the Council of Muslims was very chilling, his "deunciation" was lame in the extreme.

Exactly what I've been saying, and getting slagged off for pointing out Jambalaya. It wasn't a condemnation at all. Far from it. Quite the reverse. It was a justification for violence by drawing a line in the sand, and saying you cross this by insulting the prophet, and anythings fair game after that.

And this from an organisation that markets itself as the 'moderate' face of Islam in this country. Chilling indeed!

Steve Bells point was interesting. Asking if as a religion, are they really that insecure?

@Northwind ISIS and Shia / Sunni sectarian violence is killing far more Muslims than is the West.

And who unleashed that sectarian violence in Iraq? Was it a major problem during Saddam's reign?

There is a clear responsibility under international law for invading/occupying powers to protect the civilian population - we totally failed. It's on us - legally and morally.

Binners - you should probably worry when you are agreeing with jambalaya on politics (not watched the clip yet so I'm reserving judgement - I just find phrased like ' not in so many words' a giant red flag')

..but Iraq was held together through brutality, are you suggesting the occupiers should have continued that policy?

Do you only target brown people who download dodgy videos from the internet, or do you also execute white people who say something a bit racist on Facebook?

Eh? what's skin colour got to do with religion?

gobuchul - Member
The IRA were not "defeated". They didn't "win" but they never "lost" either.

I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities - but the main point is that whatever happens now and in the future will hopefully be peaceful.

It's a very fragile religion which cannot accept a little criticism and satire, which Islam (or at least many of its followers) does not seem to be able to do.

That was the point made by the guy I quoted. Unless I totally misunderstood, he was a Muslim and saw this as a fundamental flaw in their interpretation and/or continued belief in an outdated text.

..but Iraq was held together through brutality, are you suggesting the occupiers should have continued that policy?

No, I'm suggesting that a) we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and b) we should at least have had some kind of plan (the Americans have admitted that they didn't and that they assumed it would all be fine)

The way Britain was led into war with Iraq 10 years ago was "wholly irresponsible" and the lack of intelligence on the country a national disgrace, senior military figures have told the Guardian.

Though they direct their fire principally at the Bush administration, they make clear the Blair government must share a lot of the blame.

"It was absolutely irresponsible to go in without thinking of the consequences", said Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff and head of the army. He added: "War is dangerous, difficult, and dirty, but usually cheaper and shorter and easier than what can happen after the fighting stops."

Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary at the time, had a "lot to answer for", Guthrie added, referring to the way Rumsfeld, notorious for his "stuff happens" description of widespread looting in Baghdad, allowed Paul Bremer, the US chief administrator – in effect the US governor of Iraq after the invasion – to ban the Ba'ath party and dismantle the Iraqi army.

They should have got rid of the top people but "clasped the army to their bosom", and say to them: 'Help us rebuild Iraq'", Guthrie told the Guardian.

"Why did Bremer squash any sense of the Iraqi people taking any role in their own destiny?" asked Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, commander of British forces in Iraq at the time of the invasion. "That defies logic."

General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army at the time, described Rumsfeld and Bremer as "intellectually bankrupt". With other British defence chiefs, he expected and wanted Iraqi military units, including Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, to remain in place and help maintain law and order in Iraq after the invasion.

digga

I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -

You clearly aren't. You haven't a ****ing clue actually.

The Saudi government works very closely with the US, the US has numerous military bases and personnel inside Saudi. There are undoubtedly those inside Saudi who fund terrorism but it's not a state level activity unlike Iran. As such sanctions against Saudi make no sense unlike those in place against Iran.

@digga you mention Palestine, the French are one of Europe's most pro Palestine governments so that would make them an unlikely target, no ? One of the suspects has fantasied about attacking Jews, the returning jihadist fighter who killed the Jews at the Belgian museum was French. The terrorists you saw yesterday, they are representative of those in Government in Gaza. That is why the Israeli's control that border to prevent the sort of attack yesterday in Paris occurring on the streets of Tel Aviv. In the French press there is coverage of Palestinian officials congratulating those responsible for yesterdays attacks. Israels responce to the Palestinians may not sit well with many in the West but they are dealing with this threat day in and day out. Yesterday Israel sentenced the third of the three Hamas members who kidnapped and murdered the three teenagers. In August the leader of Hamas (resident in Qatar) finally admitted that all three responsible where Hamas operatives.

Another police officer just been shot and killed in Paris. just been reported on 5live.

And who unleashed that sectarian violence in Iraq? Was it a major problem during Saddam's reign?

@jambalaya

Who do you think creates the conditions that foment terrorism? It's a serious question. I realise you have no problem with the fact that we can knock out a few of them by knocking out lots and accepting the innocent ones as collateral damage...I recall you justifying this quite a lot on another thread. Do you think terrorism is born solely as a result of the religious beliefs of a large chunk of the population of the middle east (and stretching over to Afghanistan & ****stan). Why do we have jihadism in Western Europe? Why is there little or negligible jihadism in, say Eastern Europe or, say, South America (two very very Christian areas)? How do you think nationalism in Northern Ireland led to republicanism and consequently thirty or forty odd years of mindless violence on both (well, three actually) sides?

supposed 'moderate' viewpoint didn't look like any definition of 'moderate' that I'd recognise.

Failing to act now essentially condemns many more innocents to become collateral damage of a failed strategy.

Eh? what's skin colour got to do with religion?

Absolutely nothing at all - and that's my point, that a policy of "disappearing" people who might be a bit dodgy is bound to use stereotypes like that. Just look at the stop and search statistics regarding race.

who fund terrorism but it's not a state level activity unlike Iran

They execute [ literally] state sponsored assassinations by MOSAD on foreign soil. What would Jam say if Iran did this and will you condemn Israel as vociferously for this terrorism?

I am going for you ignore it or just tell me how bad somewhere else is and how some Muslim group are worse

Just ban religion full stop. The amount of death and suffering caused by one group claiming their version of a story is more true than anyone else's is abhorrent.

I've crossed the border between Ireland and the UK loads of times, including during the troubles when I'd be interrogated - back then I had to give my occupation as "Industrial Chemist". So, I [i]know[/i] how it feels to be suspected of terrorism. 😉

Years ago I took an electric bike battery back to Germany in my hand baggage - on X-ray it's a lot of cylinders wired up to a circuit board. So I know how it feels to be suspected of terrorism too 😉

Then there was the time US security thought I was a terrorist because I was wearing a bike event t-shirt with the sponsor's name on it - they thought Scottish Power was like Black Power...

I see that the two suspects being sought were previously involved in sending impressionable young indoctrinees to fight for IS.

Given that they exhibited thorough and trained professionalism during the hit, it looks like the worries about returning jihadis engaging in further violence in their countries of residence, are becoming true.

Just ban religion full stop

I dont agree with religion but you are either a western tolerant liberal who agrees with freedom of choice and respects the right of others to make choices you disagree with or you are an extremist who would persecute others who disagree with you...now who does the later remind you of ?

Absolutely nothing at all - and that's my point, that a policy of "disappearing" people who might be a bit dodgy is bound to use stereotypes like that.

I don't think it would be 'bound' to use stereotypes like that at all

The KGB and CIA didn't just go around just randomly killing white people in the Cold War did they?

The surest way to guarantee the spread of something is to ban it.

jimjam - Member
digga
I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -

You clearly aren't. You haven't a ****ing clue actually

As it happens my own experience is not extensive, but I do know a fair bit. However, I know a man who really does know and, if you don't mind, I'll take his opinion over yours.

you aint wrong Wopppit,

that must be why everyone is calling for a ban on western liberal tolerance.

I don't think it would be 'bound' to use stereotypes like that at all

We're speculating about how some theoretical security service would kidnap and murder its own citizens - I don't think it's possible to make any assumptions under that kind of situation.

I know a man who really does know

The surest way to guarantee the spread of something is to ban it.

That's been shown to work really well over the years. Let's see, alcohol prohibition, drug use, they even managed to change the religion of the whole of Ireland when they tried to stamp out Catholicism a few hundred years ago before we could even have a Twitter rage about things. They all worked really well.

(Apologies if you were being sarcastic...I haven't switched on my meter yet this morning.)

digga

I realise the whole process was not actually this simple - I have spent time there myself, so I am aware of the complexities -

digga
As it happens my own experience is not extensive

However, I know a man who really does know

Yes I'm sure you do. Whenever your mate Barry from the pub, who's read even more Andy McNabb books than you decides to post let me know.

digga
if you don't mind, I'll take his opinion over yours.

I don't mind at all. I didn't even read that one page on the BBC website that neatly summarised the troubles for the hard of thinking. Tat's how badly misinformed I am.

Just ban religion full stop.

You can't ban something out of existence.

Unless you are a moderator 😉

Barry down the pub though...he knows about the boathouse at Hereford.

As an aside, why do we immediately resort to the jerked knee in this country?

Anders Breivik. Norway has the most liberal prison system in the world (rehabilitation through priveledges and education and so on) and also the lowest re-offending rates.

Perhaps we should reconsider our time-honoured way of ensuring failure?