House of Commons shooting?

[LocoCoco]

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

[Stickyfinger]

Boring_Chris said:

For fk sake, The Guardian...

"Masood’s phone was reported to have connected with the *encrypted* messaging app WhatsApp just before the attack"

"... and echoes the rhetoric of Islamic State leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, *but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others*"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/we...

Bearing in mind the context of the article, in which his family have roundly condemned his actions. So the actions of one (seemingly lone) nut job is apparently enough to further erode our civil liberties?

Everybody is on WhatsApp. Everyone I know - who owns a smart phone - is on WhatsApp. It is not some underground messaging service used by terrorists and drug dealers etc etc. To describe it as such is pure propaganda. Papers like The Guardian should not be entertaining such bullst.

So if everybody is on....then the terrorist is also on it and benefitting from the encryption to avoid surveillance.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 28th March 10:57

[Boring_Chris]

Stickyfinger said:

Boring_Chris said:

For fk sake, The Guardian...

"Masood’s phone was reported to have connected with the *encrypted* messaging app WhatsApp just before the attack"

"... and echoes the rhetoric of Islamic State leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, *but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others*"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/we...

Bearing in mind the context of the article, in which his family have roundly condemned his actions. So the actions of one (seemingly lone) nut job is apparently enough to further erode our civil liberties?

Everybody is on WhatsApp. Everyone I know - who owns a smart phone - is on WhatsApp. It is not some underground messaging service used by terrorists and drug dealers etc etc. To describe it as such is pure propaganda. Papers like The Guardian should not be entertaining such bullst.

So if everybody is on....then the terrorists are also on it and befitting from the encryption to avoid surveillance.

"The terrorists"?

[Stickyfinger]

Boring_Chris said:

"The terrorists"?

point of ? benefit to discussion ?

[Alpinestars]

LocoCoco said:

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

Very good question if I may say so.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

A bit mealy mouthed tbh.

1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?

2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.

3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.

4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.

1. Already covered.

2. I haven't condoned the bombing in the Middle East. I have put an idea forward for internment - as I've said before, it's just an idea not without its drawbacks.

3. I think it's likely he was inspired by ISIS.

4. No you don't, I believe the term is 'armchair warrior'.

1. No, not really. Something about rust but that didn't make sense? Can you clarify? Your reluctance here is hard to understand.

2. OK, not that useful then.

3. Maybe. It's hard to know as he's dead but they've not found any links. So not really relevant at this point I don't think.

4. I don't think that's an official term but whatever. It's pretty accepted by most of the world that it's perfectly possible to have opinions on lots of things you haven't done personally. Politics, sport and music are just three things that people routinely criticise without experience. It's allowed.

1. It has been covered. I'd agree that the rust analogy was very silly as nobody could agree on what to do about it. I have only asked you to come up with an alternative stragtegy to the on-going campaign to remove ISIS, but you can't or won't. If you don't have a clue, just say so.

2. Perhaps more useful than just constantly berating the current strategy.

4. Official term? Your opinions are welcome. I have only asked you for an alternative view, but you and others are steadfastly refusing to do so.

I really don't get why you don't just say you don't know - if that's the case.

[Stickyfinger]

Alpinestars said:

LocoCoco said:

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

Very good question if I may say so.

If I were ISIS, I would give up, get a fridge, grow my goats and try not to burn people alive, but then I am not a TOTALLY MENTAL RELIGIOUS FRUIT CAKE.

[anonymous-user]

mcdjl said:

bmw535i said:

We could take away all the knives and cars, yes. We could also detain people.

On what grounds? Going to the same gym/shop as a terrorist? This guy had been investigated and found to be not involved with terrorism.

Only he turned out to be a terrorist.

We don't really have to discuss internment again do we? I thought you'd scratched that itch enough.

[Countdown]

Stickyfinger said:

If I were ISIS, I would give up, get a fridge, grow my goats and try not to burn people alive, but then I am not a TOTALLY MENTAL RELIGIOUS FRUIT CAKE.

maybe they were doing, until the US decided to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan and sell $$billions to the Saudis introduce them freedom and democracy.

You might be aware of the stuff that's happening in Yemen. When you kill people their friends/families don't just say "Oh well, never mind. I'll get a fridge..."

There is fk all reason for us to be there. Apart from making money.

[jjlynn27]

Stickyfinger said:

Boring_Chris said:

For fk sake, The Guardian...

"Masood’s phone was reported to have connected with the *encrypted* messaging app WhatsApp just before the attack"

"... and echoes the rhetoric of Islamic State leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians, *but at this stage I have no evidence he discussed this with others*"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/we...

Bearing in mind the context of the article, in which his family have roundly condemned his actions. So the actions of one (seemingly lone) nut job is apparently enough to further erode our civil liberties?

Everybody is on WhatsApp. Everyone I know - who owns a smart phone - is on WhatsApp. It is not some underground messaging service used by terrorists and drug dealers etc etc. To describe it as such is pure propaganda. Papers like The Guardian should not be entertaining such bullst.

So if everybody is on....then the terrorist is also on it and befitting from the encryption to avoid surveillance.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 28th March 10:27

They are also 'beffiting' from having computers and mobile phones. Or food.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

A bit mealy mouthed tbh.

1. Define 'involved with terrorism' and explain how last week's attacker would qualify?

2. So why are you suggesting what the authorities should do? Seems pretty irresponsible to start locking people up and bombing the Middle East if we don't know it will work.

3. Because it's obvious. Last week was home grown and didn't appear to have anything to do with IS.

4. So? My point was that you don't have to be a soldier to criticise military action.

1. Already covered.

2. I haven't condoned the bombing in the Middle East. I have put an idea forward for internment - as I've said before, it's just an idea not without its drawbacks.

3. I think it's likely he was inspired by ISIS.

4. No you don't, I believe the term is 'armchair warrior'.

1. No, not really. Something about rust but that didn't make sense? Can you clarify? Your reluctance here is hard to understand.

2. OK, not that useful then.

3. Maybe. It's hard to know as he's dead but they've not found any links. So not really relevant at this point I don't think.

4. I don't think that's an official term but whatever. It's pretty accepted by most of the world that it's perfectly possible to have opinions on lots of things you haven't done personally. Politics, sport and music are just three things that people routinely criticise without experience. It's allowed.

1. It has been covered. I'd agree that the rust analogy was very silly as nobody could agree on what to do about it. I have only asked you to come up with an alternative stragtegy to the on-going campaign to remove ISIS, but you can't or won't. If you don't have a clue, just say so.

2. Perhaps more useful than just constantly berating the current strategy.

4. Official term? Your opinions are welcome. I have only asked you for an alternative view, but you and others are steadfastly refusing to do so.

I really don't get why you don't just say you don't know - if that's the case.

You're just ducking the questions for some reason.

1. Care to summarise?

2. Doubt it

3. ??

4. Not even my point. Don't care what you call it - it's normal and allowed. You haven't actually asked me for an alternative view. You tried to stop people criticizing something they hadn't done, despite doing the same yourself to the police.


You're appearing strangely evasive but I appreciate it's because you don't really have a position. But why not just admit it instead of pretending people said things they didn't?

[anonymous-user]

LocoCoco said:

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

It's a very hypothetical question I suppose and one that would be very difficult to answer. Without having a grasp of their doctrine and ideology, (I expect most westerners don't) it's very difficult to answer.

To understand one's enemy and their intent, we use the estimate process. Warning - Army doctrine is incredibly dull to read.

http://www.mod.gov.sl/docs/Doctrine%20-%207%20Ques...

[LocoCoco]

Stickyfinger said:

Alpinestars said:

LocoCoco said:

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

Very good question if I may say so.

If I were ISIS, I would give up, get a fridge, grow my goats and try not to burn people alive, but then I am not a TOTALLY MENTAL RELIGIOUS FRUIT CAKE.

If every member of ISIS did that, they would lose the war instantly.
Try to think from the perspective of an ISIS member or "totally mental religious fruitcake" as you put it.

[LocoCoco]

bmw535i said:

LocoCoco said:

I've got a question for you BMW535i:


If you were on ISIS' side of all this, how would you go about winning the war against the west?


Understanding the enemy can give you a massive advantage when forming a plan to defeat them.

It's a very hypothetical question I suppose and one that would be very difficult to answer. Without having a grasp of their doctrine and ideology, (I expect most westerners don't) it's very difficult to answer.

To understand one's enemy and their intent, we use the estimate process. Warning - Army doctrine is incredibly dull to read.

http://www.mod.gov.sl/docs/Doctrine%20-%207%20Ques...

Thanks for the answer, will try get through that document sometime.

[WestyCarl]

bmw535i said:

It's a very hypothetical question I suppose and one that would be very difficult to answer. Without having a grasp of their doctrine and ideology, (I expect most westerners don't) it's very difficult to answer.

To understand one's enemy and their intent, we use the estimate process. Warning - Army doctrine is incredibly dull to read.

http://www.mod.gov.sl/docs/Doctrine%20-%207%20Ques...

deleted post. (misunderstood question )

Edited by WestyCarl on Tuesday 28th March 10:58

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

You're just ducking the questions for some reason.

1. Care to summarise?

2. Doubt it

3. ??

4. Not even my point. Don't care what you call it - it's normal and allowed. You haven't actually asked me for an alternative view. You tried to stop people criticizing something they hadn't done, despite doing the same yourself to the police.


You're appearing strangely evasive but I appreciate it's because you don't really have a position. But why not just admit it instead of pretending people said things they didn't?

1. As I understand it he was involved in the TA barracks plot - I have already mentioned this.

2. OK - it's fine to disagree.

3. I had nothing to add as we were both just speculating.

4. I have asked several times for people to come up with an alternative strategy to airstrikes to defeat ISIS, but none has been forthcoming. Do you have one?

Yes I do criticise the police - we have already discussed that point. I'm not trying to stop people criticising the military - I'm just asking what people think would be a strategy for defeating ISIS.

I don't think I've misquoted anyone or been evasive. There seems little point in just repeating the same points to different posters if they have missed the answer provided to someone else.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

You're just ducking the questions for some reason.

1. Care to summarise?

2. Doubt it

3. ??

4. Not even my point. Don't care what you call it - it's normal and allowed. You haven't actually asked me for an alternative view. You tried to stop people criticizing something they hadn't done, despite doing the same yourself to the police.


You're appearing strangely evasive but I appreciate it's because you don't really have a position. But why not just admit it instead of pretending people said things they didn't?

1. As I understand it he was involved in the TA barracks plot - I have already mentioned this.

2. OK - it's fine to disagree.

3. I had nothing to add as we were both just speculating.

4. I have asked several times for people to come up with an alternative strategy to airstrikes to defeat ISIS, but none has been forthcoming. Do you have one?

Yes I do criticise the police - we have already discussed that point. I'm not trying to stop people criticising the military - I'm just asking what people think would be a strategy for defeating ISIS.

I don't think I've misquoted anyone or been evasive. There seems little point in just repeating the same points to different posters if they have missed the answer provided to someone else.

Ok, last time: How are you defining 'involved with terrorism"?

Fine if you don't want to but it's getting tedious.

[mcdjl]

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

bmw535i said:

We could take away all the knives and cars, yes. We could also detain people.

On what grounds? Going to the same gym/shop as a terrorist? This guy had been investigated and found to be not involved with terrorism.

Only he turned out to be a terrorist.

We don't really have to discuss internment again do we? I thought you'd scratched that itch enough.

Unfortunately it seems to be the case that we haven't. Are we then proposing that the police lock up everyone who is ever investigated for potential links to terrorism (but no evidence found against) on the basis that the police might get it wrong? On the basis that everyone who is security cleared is investigated for potential links to terrorism in the clearing process, do you not see any problems with detaining people who we have no evidence against?

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Even George Galloway (who to be fair, much as I loathe him, is pretty clued up on the ME) pronounced where we are now in almost perfect detail

George Galloway's view of the ME is totally at odds with the majority in the UK/US so if he says something I take it with a pinch of salt, in this instance he got lucky with his prediction.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Ok, last time: How are you defining 'involved with terrorism"?

Fine if you don't want to but it's getting tedious.

BMw535i said:

1. As I understand it he was involved in the TA barracks plot - I have already mentioned this.

(Quite a lot of times)

I think I have also mentioned it's been noted you are quite obtuse.

I am going to assume you don't want to continue discussing the strategy to defeat ISIS?

mcdjl said:

Unfortunately it seems to be the case that we haven't. Are we then proposing that the police lock up everyone who is ever investigated for potential links to terrorism (but no evidence found against) on the basis that the police might get it wrong? On the basis that everyone who is security cleared is investigated for potential links to terrorism in the clearing process, do you not see any problems with detaining people who we have no evidence against?

I have already expressed my views on internment. There seems little merit in just answering the same questions over and over.