You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know someone else posted a link on the same subject but this really needs addressing by Government for things to progress:
Sensitive' UK terror funding inquiry may never be publishedAn investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorised by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
The inquiry into revenue streams for extremist groups operating in the UK was commissioned by the former prime minister and is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which has repeatedly been highlighted by European leaders as a funding source for Islamist jihadis.
The investigation was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has written to the prime minister asking her to confirm that the investigation will not be shelved.
The Observer reported in January last year that the Home Office’s extremism analysis unit had been directed by Downing Street to investigate overseas funding of extremist groups in the UK, with findings to be shown to Theresa May, then home secretary, and Cameron.
However, 18 months later, the Home Office confirmed the report had not yet been completed and said it would not necessarily be published, calling the contents “very sensitive”.
A decision would be taken “after the election by the next government” about the future of the investigation, a Home Office spokesman said.
In his letter to May, Brake wrote: “As home secretary at the time, your department was one of those leading on the report. Eighteen months later, and following two horrific terrorist attacks by British-born citizens, that report still remains incomplete and unpublished.
“It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.”
The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.
Last December, a leaked report from Germany’s federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it “a long-term strategy of influence”.
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he felt the government had not held up its side of the bargain made ahead of the vote on airstrikes. The report must be published when it was completed, he insisted, despite the Home Office caution that information in the document would be sensitive.
“That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hardline views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly,” he said.
“If the Conservatives are serious about stopping terrorism on our shores, they must stop stalling and reopen investigation into foreign funding of violent extremism in the UK.”
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia ]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/sensitive-uk-terror-funding-inquiry-findings-may-never-be-published-saudi-arabia[/url]
greentricky - Member
I know someone else posted a link on the same subject but this really needs addressing by Government for things to progress:
It's almost irrelevant. If the Saudi's stopped buying british weapons the uk arms industry would collapse, and possibly the economy with it.
How do you think this argument would have fared against the young men who tried to murder people with a van, then began stabbing random stangers with hunting knives?
It's not an argument, just something I believe to be true.
Does Buddism or Sikhism have the same potential for violence as christiantiy or Islam?
Yes.
They all have the same potential.
Given enough time and will, anything can be corrupted.
Unspeakable acts are commited in the name love every second of every day.
[url= https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/207047-Religious-scholars-issue-unanimous-fatwa-declaring-suicide-attacks-Haram ]Fatwa issued against 'Islamist' terrorism[/url]
OK, this thread is a bit heavy going, so time for an intermission!
[url= https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/871420302571524096 ]StupidTwitterThreadOfTheDay[/url]
^^ read that and try not to laugh. Some terrific responses, from people clearly way brighter than the original tweeter!
My wife won't let me read anymore of that Twitter feed as my laughing will wake the kids.
Does Buddism or Sikhism have the same potential for violence as christiantiy or Islam?
Read a little of the history of the Indian sub-continent. Also, find out about the current massacre in Burma.
wilburt - Member
I can tell you very definitely that Islam discourages integration
How so? Does it discourage it any more than any other religion?
For that matter, a good number of obnoxious atheists hardly encourage it!
Forgot to mention. Lucorave - one of the best posts I have ever read on here.
jamj1974 - Member
Forgot to mention. Lucorave - one of the best posts I have ever read on here
Ditto.
4. Outlaw Halal slaughter, again religion has no place in the food chain.
i am always astounded when meat eaters suddenly care about animal welfare issues. I always suspect that is not the real motivation here
Jimjam you misunderstand me, I'm not complaining that it's barbaric, I'm saying there shouldn't be any religious influence on the production of meat or indeed any food.
El-bent - Member
I have no clue what you are going on about El-bent.
How comes I'm not surprised at this?
You really need to explain yourself, go on, in basic terms, what the hell are you on about?
A suicide bomber/attacker has been pre-convinced they are achieving something and that they are contributing towards that.
So remove that, for example, ex-communicate them from their faith before burial, do something so bad that they'd never get there.
I'm gonna run into a crowd and blow myself up and be consigned to purgatory...hmm...Bury them in a paupers grave with nothing due their faith, and if that means its against the up-most tennents of your faith, tough you removed yourself from it being a sh*tbag
wilburt - Member
I can tell you very definitely that Islam discourages integration
How so? Does it discourage it any more than any other religion?For that matter, a good number of obnoxious atheists hardly encourage it!
It's actively discouraged by the local high-caste Indian community, or it was some years ago, I think they're Hindu, not Sikh, but one of the daughters of the head of the 'clan', for want of a better word, possibly community leader might be better, but anyway she had a local white English boyfriend; nothing wrong in that, all hunky-dory, until, that is, they announced they wanted to get married.
Oh dear, she was told, in no uncertain terms, that the relationship stopped right there, if she wanted to carry on, she was out of the family, no ifs, no buts.
She stood her ground and was kicked out of the family!
I haven't seen her for some years, I think the marriage broke up after some time, but no idea if there was any eventual mending of the rift or not.
They were certainly well-off, the younger daughter went to Grittleton House School, an expensive local public school, and they acted as banker for the community, so I understand.
Just an example of the fact that all races can be bigoted and racist towards others they disapprove of, it's not just the preserve of white Caucasians, no matter what some people would have us believe.
call me a sceptic, but it seems to me that a full frontal attack on peoples religion won't have any affect on reducing terrorism. Most likely the opposite tbh.mitsumonkey - MemberJimjam you misunderstand me, I'm not complaining that it's barbaric, I'm saying there shouldn't be any religious influence on the production of meat or indeed any food.
Intolerance isn't a solution.
^ trudat, slight tangent but an American friend of mine who's lucky enough to move in higher circles told me that political allegiance is a deal breaker within the dating department.
Jimjam you misunderstand me, I'm not complaining that it's barbaric, I'm saying there shouldn't be any religious influence on the production of meat or indeed any food.
What does it matter? Why are you scared about it? Do you apply the same bar to Kosher food?
AIUI (IANAMuslim),
Halal slaughter was an attempt to reduce suffering of animals killed for food. Technology has surpassed the Halal process now to a point where Halal is achieving the opposite effect. What's more important, literal interpretation or intent? It's a weird dichotomy.
The whole religion thing is a red herring. Religion is a whole other subject worthy of a different discussion but not just Islam that should be in the firing line but all religion - but Islam in particular needs to be scrutinised and challenged more than any other religion because we've been pussy-footing around it for so long for some reason and treating it like a special case unlike any other institution. But in this case it is utterly irrelevant. There is only one reason for these terrorists doing what they are doing - hate. they just hate us and want to kill us. Simple as that. And its not just us, it's each other too - they're slaughtering each other, so they're at war with everyone. We shouldn't be so surprised as history is littered with other such people who just want to kill people - Hitler for one. We don't have multi-page threads searching for justification as to why Hitler slaughtered millions of Jew's - we just accept he was a Megalomaniac Psychopath who hated Jews and wanted to take over the world. Any attempt to give consideration or empathy to their (the terrorists) stated reasons for their killing, such as extremist religion or UK foreign policy, is just to legitimise their claims. We shouldn't accept it, shouldn't give it any space to breathe and just deal with it. Sometimes in life things are black and white and you just need to choose a side and this is one of those cases.
The root cause here are psychopathic hateful cowards preying on other vulnerable people to do their dirty work using Islam as a conduit and radicalising them - brainwashing them to do their bidding. It is a process that takes time so we need to get in there and catch these people as early on in the radicalisation process as possible and catch those doing the radicalisation.
We [s]don't[/s] have multi-page threads searching for justification as to why [s]Hitler slaughtered millions of Jew's[/s] we should or shouldn't punish Muslims
Anyway, I thought (and I was mostly wrong) that this thread was an attempt to identify the causes, not the 'justification'.*
*That's some rampant spin you have there.
Terrorist attacks aren't the same thing as an invading army. Hitler and the Nazis invaded countries. Now we can try and cast Muslims as 'an invading army', but that would be much closer to Nazi propaganda. Remember, the Nazis claimed that they were over-run with 'inhuman' immigrants who drained the very life blood from the Proper Germans TM.
The root cause here are psychopathic hateful cowards preying on other vulnerable people to do their dirty work using Islam as a conduit and radicalising them - brainwashing them to do their bidding. It is a process that takes time so we need to get in there and catch these people as early on in the radicalisation process as possible and catch those doing the radicalisation.
That makes sense on the face of it. But, slow down, references, evidence? Who are these 'psychopathic hateful cowards'? Where are they right now, and where did they come from? And what percentage of attacks are inspired/directed by these same people?
And re Hitler
we just accept he was a Megalomaniac Psychopath who hated Jews and wanted to take over the world.
I never just accepted that, I'm still looking for answers as to how millions of everyday German people stood behind a psychopath and were very happy to 'get rid' of the Jews. Because without understanding the radicalisation and motivation of the German people then we understand next to nothing about the 'power' of Hitler.
It is a process that takes time so we need to get in there and catch these people as early on in the radicalisation process as possible and catch those doing the radicalisation.
What if 'those' doing the radicalisation are not people but acts, events, continual attacks on a culture etc,.
Imagine this. Another country starts interfering in the UK as they don't like what we are doing here and how the country is run. It does this for years and then starts a bombing campaign, funding groups within teh country that try to bring it down and so on.
You either live in this environment for 20 years or maybe you have escaped and now live abroad but still see your UK friends and families being subjected to it.
Do you think some (a tiny minority) of the UK people may start losing it, taking action themselves, killing people from the other country, travelling to the other country to do harm etc,.
Not justification but a different perspective that can be related to.
It's actively discouraged by the local high-caste Indian community
You have to be very careful with this kind of anecdote. You don't really know how prevalent that attitude is; nor do you know if it also happens in other communities. I'm pretty sure it does. A (completely secular) Scottish mate of mine once caused a fair bit of consternation in some elements of his family by going out with a Catholic girl.
There is only one reason for these terrorists doing what they are doing - hate. they just hate us and want to kill us. Simple as that.
Wobbliscott, I agree with most of your post, but I do think it is not as simple as that. I am of the opinion that these kinds of attacks are carried out by people who are simply disturbed and need something to fight for. They are then being used by other people with a broader agenda of disruption but for largely similar reasons I think except on a larger scale. I'm sure ISIS leadership are just drunk on power.
Zokes you ain't reading it, I said ANY religious influence on the production of food. I'm not singling out one religion, it's all of them.
Zokes you ain't reading it, I said ANY religious influence on the production of food. I'm not singling out one religion, it's all of them.
But why do you want that? What would be the purpose?
why do you want to attack peoples religion?mitsumonkey - Member
Zokes you ain't reading it, I said ANY religious influence on the production of food. I'm not singling out one religion, it's all of them.
At least he's inclusive in his bigotry 😆
Heres the guy claiming to have notified the (under-resourced) anti-terrorism hotline 2 years ago about one of teh London Attacjers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40159360/they-didn-t-get-back-to-me
Whats your point kimbers, is it what is expected that you reply to assure people are terrorists or being watched?
Junkyard - lazarusmolgrips » I can tell you very definitely that Islam discourages integration
Can you go into a bit more detail?Hadith or Koranic reference please
Posted 15 hours ago #
Here's a couple (there are others)
Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Quran (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."
Islamic scholars argue about what it really means, but as with all things that can be interpreted, some people will take it to an extreme. I was working in Indonesia last year, and there were some pretty big protests after a christian politician accused some Imams of delibrately using 5:51 to create divisions.
Here are some great Christian intergrationists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
hate is not exclusive, along with reading what you want from very old books
Are you trying to have an argument with me?
Did you even read the rest of my post?
yeah, my point being it's fairly common for people to start using religion for whatever they want
Folk in here might want a quick gander at the news about Qatar
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/saudi-bahrain-egypt-uae-qatar-terror/index.html
It comes amid heightened tensions between Gulf countries and their near-neighbour Iran. The Saudi statement accused Qatar of collaborating with "Iranian-backed terrorist groups" in its restive Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain.
From the BBC, a very interesting quote given how Trump was so eager Trump was to shift the focus from Saudi to Iran despite a lot of things not adding up on his visit.
Nicely put by Lucorave and I'm certainly victim to western media despite knowing how badly we are all manipulated by it even down to our bloody weather forcasts.
It is such a sad state we find ourselves in that we now have fellow countrymen believing they will be better off dead and in their sacrifice they will somehow do their cause good. Fundamentally this is a failing of education. Even the IRA guys wanted to survive their bombs, these poor unfortunates in actually believing the doctrine fed to them by whoever are always going to be difficult to stop without achieving some part of their goal.
There is no easy answer, not without a more serious attempt at reaching all corners of our populace with the message that all these religious beliefs are not only wrong but are and have always been a political means of control and subjugation. We're in need of a serious reformation, a reformation based in what can be proved, what we actually know now about the Universe and our part in it. Wether Creationist or Militant Jihadist they are all folk lacking in either a good education or a sound inquiring mind. The task ahead above everything has got to be about scientific enlightenment a la Prof Cox.
If God forbid it comes to large scale internment or ever increased prison population as a result of all this and whatever May is now planning, the fundamental thing that needs addressing is to throw doubt into every religious belief system on earth. It's no good us being all high minded, tolerant and inclusive on the one hand if by doing so we ignore the underlying ignorance, prejudice and fear that can be manipulated for whatever cause might seem appropriate at the time. I hate to say the word Re-education centre, but if it has to be that we are all to be held to one particular mindset, then we sure as hell ought to make sure everyone is on the same page, or it will go on forever.
From the BBC, a very interesting quote given how Trump was so eager Trump was to shift the focus from Saudi to Iran despite a lot of things not adding up on his visit.
The implications this move will have on the circa 11k US military personnel in Qatar will be interesting.
Good grief, I'll put it another way, why should religion have any bearing on how animals are slaughtered? Secular food?
Is that better?
And now I'm being accused of attacking people's religion, how funny, I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
mikewsmith - Member
Whats your point kimbers, is it what is expected that you reply to assure people are terrorists or being watched?
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
that is the conundrum isn't it. Is it the religion of using religion as the fuel to terror. It's at the crux of it, much as I dislike the way people follow religion the 2 things are need to be treated in the right way - attacking religion fuels the terror. Work out how to deal with the terrorists - despite a lot of loud shoutin and and grandstanding nothing has worked so far.
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
Maybe they had what they needed? It's one of the things about rolling news is now we get to hear from one person, it's unlikely you will hear from the people who dealt with the case though or what they did yet you have formed a judgement on what they did.
yeah, my point being it's fairly common for people to start using religion for whatever they want
Ah, no worries.
no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info
Maybe they did, if so what info is he going to offer? He's hardly going to say, oh yes, in a few years I'm going to run a few people over and knife some others.
Let's say they didn't but in future they thoroughly investigate every report. They find he's a self confessed Islamist. They find a kitchen cupboard with knives. They find he has a car.
He's commited no offence.
What then?
Internment? How will that play in the Muslim community?
....and once word gets round that every report results in some serious consiquence you get into the liklihood of Islamists reporting all the people in their local mosque as being Islamists to further foster mistrust. Crackdowns on Muslims is *exactly* what militant Islams wants.
They find he's a self confessed Islamist.
What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?
1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.
a person who believes strongly in Islam, especially one who believes that Islam should influence political systems
Maybe they had what they needed?
quite possibly but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working
about 1-30 in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08sks0t#play
also touches on the funding received from Saudi etc and the government surpressing investigation into that
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
I started the thread, it wasn't. It was primarily started to get the tasteless bickering out of the London/Manchester attack threads.
What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?
I once read a book called "The Islamist" by Ed Husain. From that I gathered 'Islamist' meant "Militant Extreme Violent Muslim" if it doesn't I'm using the word in the wrong context. (As is Ed.)
but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working
But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can't actually stop them doing anything
And we all saw the uproar over control orders - the same people now screaming that more police are needed to 'investigate' terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
I have nothing to hide but plenty to fear.
How about your bank details being accidentally leaked?
I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you're at it your bank statements please. You don't have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?
But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can't actually stop them doing anything
Speculation again. What was reported, what did they find? What did they conclude? What was the outcome? What happened between the report and now?
Come on you have all the answers
I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
And I'm amazed that some sheeple will so willingly give away their privacy.
Why should the government have carte blanche over private data? We look be in a democracy, not a totalitarian state. If your rather that, then please feel free to **** off to North Korea, they know how to deal with [s]suspected enemies of the state[/s] people who disagree with them there.
So, now you think we need 20,000 more police to investigate people, but you don't want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them 🙄
Oh dear. Didn't take long to find one.Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you're at it your bank statements please. You don't have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?
ninfan - Member
So, now you think we need more police to investigate people, but you dint want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them
it must be hard to make it through a day with so much confusion in there, maybe have a lie down. What can the Police, Security service etc do with a warrant at present? Do you actually know?
Oh dear. Didn't take long to find one.
Find one what? If you've nothing to hide I'm sure you'll be quite happy to share your browsing history with us, especially that half hour whilst your wife was out but you forgot to enable incognito mode...
[b]What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?[/b]
Simple for the armchair experts.
mitsumonkey - Member
I thought this thread was started because people's religion was attacking us!
Only the hard of thinking think this.
And we all saw the uproar over control orders - the same people now screaming that more police are needed to 'investigate' terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.
Are they?
Or are you projecting your screaming about everything at the rest of us?
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.flanagaj - Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Other than that state slipping too far right or left or being viewed as a soft target for whatever indiscretion of the moment that surfaces on someones agenda. God haven't you people tolerated enough intrusion, it's bad enough I can't go from A to B without being surveiled God knows how many times by CCTV or that I end up being charged for being in posession of a 'dangerous dog' thanks to the vigilance of a snoopy neighbour who's dog disagreed with mine on my own land. Or that if I travel at 3 mph over the limit I end up paying for a Government civil obedience course, or if I ride my m'cycle with the wind blowing over the bit where my curly locks used to be I get fined, never mind if I openly preach religious disagreement or talk out of turn about those with sexual preferences different to mine, or refuse to bake a particular kind of cake...flanagaj - Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like 'Liberty' make the goverment's job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse
Another aspect is giving all that capability to the state also hopes they remain competent in protecting (they also including the almost inevitable private sector contractors).
The recent wannacry problems show the flaws in this.
seosamh77 - Member
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It's not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.
Very true.
Usually the first steps are disarming the public, restricting free association, and clamping down on free speech. All of which are easy to do if first you can show that this is being done in response to a threat.
But I have been wondering about the nature of Muslim terrorism. They seem to eschew democracy yet are relying on democracy to achieve their ends, ie kill enough random people so that the public puts pressure on the politicians to change course. It just seems to rally the public behind the policies.
Surely it would be more effective if they were more precisely targetted? Aim at the political leaders they feel were oppressing them rather than random members of the public or blowing up a Tory convention like the Irish did. In other words behave as their predecessors, the assassins did.
Is there a strategy or is it just people exploding with frustration? (pun not intended).
A few years ago everyone was condemning the "Muslim community" for not doing enough, failing to condemn terrorism, turning a blind eye and more.
Now it seems like the "Muslim Community" [b]has[/b] been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.
Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?
Now it seems like the "Muslim Community" has been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?
based on??? Seriously what insight do you have to one of the 3 rough scenarios
They didn't bother?
They didn't have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?
They didn't bother?
They didn't have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?
whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks
they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.
What intervention do you want?
We're told Islamist should be "investigated" we're told there should be an "intervention".
Exactly what?
Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?
whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks
Well yes, but if he wants crediblity he has to say what action he wants taken against Islamic Militants who haven't committed a crime (yet).
The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that's any better than what is currently happening.
From an opinion piece in today's paper by Lord Carlile - former LiB Dem peer and most recently the independent scrutiniser of anti-terror legislation:
"Last Friday I attended a hustings meeting at which the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, spoke for the Labour Party. Incoherent and incomprehensible might be too generous a description of her performance. The notion that she could lead the Home Office should leave us all in frozen apprehension.
Mr Corbyn appears to believe, with extreme naïveté, that it is possible to negotiate with organisations which inspire the belief that it is desirable to bomb and knife women and children on a night out. This is extremely disappointing. I have known successive Labour home secretaries who understood the issue and acted on the merits."
Do we all feel safer now?
The question of what to do at home with people guilty of no crime is probably the most pointless. Either we make "religious in charge of a Quran" a crime or we have to actually prosecute people for committing offences. It's pretty tough to prove that someone who was looking at dodgy twitter/facebook/youtube stuff has intent to commit a terror attack until they take some steps towards actually DOING something.
The average pub/MTB forum is full of blowhard gobshites who reckon they could take on <INSERT PERSON/GROUP OF CHOICE> with one arm tied behind their backs and I assume the average mosque/madrassa/islamic social media site or forum is the same. If we locked everyone up who suggested they'd piss in someone's shoes, batter or murder someone, half of the UK would be locked up. Which, given some threads on here recently, may not be a bad thing.
The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that's any better than what is currently happening.
And exactly what is currently happening?
I've got a good idea - Why don't we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).
Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
In the absence of a crystal ball or a time machine, I'm afraid so.
Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?
Agreed, but if as it seems we are, at war with Islamic State, it would seem perfectly reasonable to intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat. Every other war, the nationals that remained here were subjected to just such treatment. I mean if you follow the logic using a WW2 analogy we'd have been allowing Germans to travel freely here throughout the duration without let or hindrance.
Not that it is an answer, but it is a Band-Aid, better than screening and watching which I assume is what is currently going on.
kerley - Member
I've got a good idea - Why don't we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn't it....
We need Tom...
[img] 
[/img]
The Belgian government tries their citizens in absentia when it's suspected that they have gone to fight for IS or another fundamentalist group. On their return they are able to appeal the conviction or, in some cases, retrospectively get some time off if they cooperate with intelligence services. Not that this has prevented Belgians going off to fight or get involved in terrorist attacks of course, so perhaps internment wouldn't work either.
And exactly what is currently happening?
Innocent until proven guilty. It's worked quite well in liberal democracies for a very long time.
I've got a good idea - Why don't we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime
Good idea, you could pick a euphenism to describe it like "investigate" or "intervention".
intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat.
That's a very different case to what's being discussed here which is (say) me phoning up the Police to tell them my mate is an Islamist plus he has a car and a kitchen with knives in it and an 'intervention' automatically taking place before he's actually done anything illegal.
Incidently, I accept we're at 'war' with Isis (we must be, we keep bombing them) but I remain to be convinced that the hopegrown terrorists are anything more than dissaffected weirdo criminals.
I watched Good Kill and it very much seemed like they were killing people before they did anything (or if they had done something, before evidence had been acquired) based on probabilities of them being terrorists calculated using an algorithm.
It's a fictional film based on real accounts from wikileaks I think.
Our governments have been taking action. Effectively attempting to ring fence the middle east by force and soft means, something that is still ongoing and not fully realised. Reducing our need for oil, which unfortunately is very difficult to do without hamstringing the economy and in the face of competition from emerging economies, who will grab growth by any means with both hands. Furthermore oil producers recognising the situation and slashing prices.
Further high level military action is inevitable now public support has been firmed up.
outofbreath - Member
intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat.
That's a very different case to what's being discussed here which is (say) me phoning up the Police to tell them my mate is an Islamist plus he has a car and a kitchen with knives in it and an 'intervention' automatically taking place before he's actually done anything illegal.Incidently, I accept we're at 'war' with Isis (we must be, we keep bombing them) but I remain to be convinced that the hopegrown terrorists are anything more than dissaffected weirdo criminals.
Yes I get that, and fundamentally I would be opposed to any kind of internment based purely on suspicion or as you point out potential nuisance/vicious/unjustified accusation. These people have passports they travel to hotspots, it's not easy but it is possible to directly link them to having acted with 'the enemy' and there are plenty of laws covering that so no need for another raft of legislation which mark my words is about to descend upon us.