House of Commons shooting?

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

mcdjl

5,438 posts

194 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Because unless you define it, it is meaningless. What does 'involved with terrorism' mean?

I'm saying that you are obtuse btw, in case you thought I was being obtuse there...
Someone involved in a terrorist plot. Is that difficult to understand? I don't really know what else to say I'm afraid.
Explain what constitutes 'involved with'. Come on, it's not a hard question! It's your terminology so why you can't accurately define it is a mystery to me.
In KM's case being involved with terrorism appears to mean going to the same gym as a terrorist. In BMW535i's case it wouldn't. Cos' hes not a terrorist you see.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
I agree there are failings with the current strategy - I have stated this several times.

How would you propose protecting our own borders. We have to bear in mind there are several hundred British people fighing for ISIS as we speak who will undoubtedly return at some point.
I wouldn't allow their return frankly. And if that's precluded by international law/covenant then some form of downside is needed. Perhaps permanent removal of rights to travel along with some rehabilitation somewhere secure?

What we really need to be doing is understanding why people are inclined to go and fight in the first place. I suspect that much closer integration of communities will be needed to see progress there. I don't understand/fully accept the whole "but he was a lovely boy" angle that is oft trotted out.

Expedited expulsion of extremists/those with extremist views on our say so won't hurt either. Something that will hopefully become easier over the coming years.

mcdjl

5,438 posts

194 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
bmw535i said:
I agree there are failings with the current strategy - I have stated this several times.

How would you propose protecting our own borders. We have to bear in mind there are several hundred British people fighing for ISIS as we speak who will undoubtedly return at some point.
I wouldn't allow their return frankly. And if that's precluded by international law/covenant then some form of downside is needed. Perhaps permanent removal of rights to travel along with some rehabilitation somewhere secure?

What we really need to be doing is understanding why people are inclined to go and fight in the first place. I suspect that much closer integration of communities will be needed to see progress there. I don't understand/fully accept the whole "but he was a lovely boy" angle that is oft trotted out.

Expedited expulsion of extremists/those with extremist views on our say so won't hurt either. Something that will hopefully become easier over the coming years.
To be honest I'm not sure we as a country should be too keen on people who have been fighting on any (for/against ISIS, Assad, Turks) side out there coming back.

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Gavia said:
So you don't think he should have been released, even though he was investigated and shown not to be involved in terrorism. Whilst your internment criteria is that anyone involved in terrorism should be locked up

Can you see why we're confused.
It appears he was involved in terrorism. He was a terrorist.
He was involved with terrorism after the Westminster attack, but locking him up afterwards would be a bit futile, not least as he's dead.

He wasn't involved in terrorism prior to that, so under what circumstances would you lock him up? Let's just be clear about this TA attack. He was investigated and found not to be involved at all, so you can't lock him up for that under your own criteria.

rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Because unless you define it, it is meaningless. What does 'involved with terrorism' mean?

I'm saying that you are obtuse btw, in case you thought I was being obtuse there...
Someone involved in a terrorist plot. Is that difficult to understand? I don't really know what else to say I'm afraid.
How exactly was he involved? Show me a single news story containing a stronger link than he lived near and shared a gym with one of the terrorists.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
mcdjl said:
To be honest I'm not sure we as a country should be too keen on people who have been fighting on any (for/against ISIS, Assad, Turks) side out there coming back.
I agree.

Maybe this would be the "fairest" way to invoke sanction against people - you want to fight in a war, join the UK armed forces and if there is one you'll be deployed, or relinquish your citizenship and fight for whomever you please. No prejudice about side.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
Explain what constitutes 'involved with'. Come on, it's not a hard question! It's your terminology so why you can't accurately define it is a mystery to me.
It's not my terminology. It's how Masoods actions were described in relation to his previous investigation from MI5. I'm not sure why you're making stuff up.

Murph7355 said:
I wouldn't allow their return frankly. And if that's precluded by international law/covenant then some form of downside is needed. Perhaps permanent removal of rights to travel along with some rehabilitation somewhere secure?

What we really need to be doing is understanding why people are inclined to go and fight in the first place. I suspect that much closer integration of communities will be needed to see progress there. I don't understand/fully accept the whole "but he was a lovely boy" angle that is oft trotted out.

Expedited expulsion of extremists/those with extremist views on our say so won't hurt either. Something that will hopefully become easier over the coming years.
We certainly shouldn't allow them to return, but as has been pointed out international law prevents a person from being made stateless. The other option is to intern them on return.

mcdjl said:
To be honest I'm not sure we as a country should be too keen on people who have been fighting on any (for/against ISIS, Assad, Turks) side out there coming back.
I agree.

Gavia said:
He was involved with terrorism after the Westminster attack, but locking him up afterwards would be a bit futile, not least as he's dead.

He wasn't involved in terrorism prior to that, so under what circumstances would you lock him up? Let's just be clear about this TA attack. He was investigated and found not to be involved at all, so you can't lock him up for that under your own criteria.
AFTER the Westminster attack?

We have no details of the previous investigation into his involvement in terrorism. If he had been interned, he wouldn't have been able to carry out the Westminster attack.

I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss this really.

TTwiggy

Original Poster:

11,500 posts

203 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
I agree.

Maybe this would be the "fairest" way to invoke sanction against people - you want to fight in a war, join the UK armed forces and if there is one you'll be deployed, or relinquish your citizenship and fight for whomever you please. No prejudice about side.
Problem with that is that some 'consultants' (ex UK military on a nice earner) might fall fowl of the rules. Then there are those morally just wars that people might feel compelled to get involved in (1930s Spain).

I think a fairer 'cut off' would be 'have you taken up arms against the UK or her NATO allies?'

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
rscott said:
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Because unless you define it, it is meaningless. What does 'involved with terrorism' mean?

I'm saying that you are obtuse btw, in case you thought I was being obtuse there...
Someone involved in a terrorist plot. Is that difficult to understand? I don't really know what else to say I'm afraid.
How exactly was he involved? Show me a single news story containing a stronger link than he lived near and shared a gym with one of the terrorists.
I was discussing the definition of the phrase.

Shakermaker

11,317 posts

99 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:


We have no details of the previous investigation into his involvement in terrorism. If he had been interned, he wouldn't have been able to carry out the Westminster attack.

I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss this really.
No, WE do not. Whoever did the "investigation" beforehand, found out as much as has been discussed on this thread. He happened to live near some people who were involved in a plot, and went to the same gym as them.

Nothing that they could find, pointed out that he was involved in terrorism.

Hence, he would not have been locked up. But your argument seems to say that he should have been locked up, because he went to the same gym as some bad people. That's a pretty big stretch.

Just because a group of us on an internet forum do not have all the details, does not mean that all the details do not exist and were not considered.

WestyCarl

3,217 posts

124 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
AFTER the Westminster attack?

We have no details of the previous investigation into his involvement in terrorism. If he had been interned, he wouldn't have been able to carry out the Westminster attack.

I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss this really.
OK, so let's say he was interned? (I'm avoiding the question you're avoiding of what evidence you need to intern someone wink) Don't you think that would have hardened the resolve of his known colleagues and friends to continue or even escalate the fight against the UK. Much like bombing, you intern one, but potentially recruit many others.

After all Guantanamo Bay didn't seem to work.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
WestyCarl said:
OK, so let's say he was interned? (I'm avoiding the question you're avoiding of what evidence you need to intern someone wink) Don't you think that would have hardened the resolve of his known colleagues and friends to continue or even escalate the fight against the UK. Much like bombing, you intern one, but potentially recruit many others.

After all Guantanamo Bay didn't seem to work.
Yes, I dare say it would. As I have said several times, there are certainly issues with the idea.

People don't seem to like the fact I've raised it as an opinion. The same people also think it's fine to have an opinion about airstrikes, but with no alternative ideas. Strange really.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Shakermaker said:
No, WE do not. Whoever did the "investigation" beforehand, found out as much as has been discussed on this thread.
I dare say MI5 found out more about him than we know in this thread.


WestyCarl

3,217 posts

124 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
WestyCarl said:
OK, so let's say he was interned? (I'm avoiding the question you're avoiding of what evidence you need to intern someone wink) Don't you think that would have hardened the resolve of his known colleagues and friends to continue or even escalate the fight against the UK. Much like bombing, you intern one, but potentially recruit many others.

After all Guantanamo Bay didn't seem to work.
Yes, I dare say it would. As I have said several times, there are certainly issues with the idea.

People don't seem to like the fact I've raised it as an opinion. The same people also think it's fine to have an opinion about airstrikes, but with no alternative ideas. Strange really.
People are posting ideas (I did a few pages ago), it's just you're choosing to ignore them..........

Disastrous

10,072 posts

216 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Explain what constitutes 'involved with'. Come on, it's not a hard question! It's your terminology so why you can't accurately define it is a mystery to me.
It's not my terminology. It's how Masoods actions were described in relation to his previous investigation from MI5. I'm not sure why you're making stuff up.
No, it's what YOU said would be required to lock someone up indefinitely.

Look, I'm sorry - these are things YOU said. I'm not going to debate this anymore as the facts are plain to see for anyone reading the thread. Several people have remarked on your bizarre squirming and general evasiveness so I'm not sure what you're really hoping to achieve here.

You've aired an opinion that is distasteful to most but you are unable to defend it coherently, because frankly, your position makes no sense. An actual INVESTIGATION into Masood found him to NOT be involved with terrorism thus even under your own bullst criteria, he wouldn't have been locked up.

This is just ridiculous now so I'm done. Life is too short. I'm out.


Shakermaker

11,317 posts

99 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Shakermaker said:
No, WE do not. Whoever did the "investigation" beforehand, found out as much as has been discussed on this thread.
I dare say MI5 found out more about him than we know in this thread.
I'm sure they did. But probably most of it was entirely irrelevant information, because I'm sure that if what they know was enough for them to believe he was going to go and drive a car at a load of pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and then stab a policeman, they might well have been able to stop him and we would never even know who he was.

But you cannot lock everyone up who was ever investigated. Firstly, the cost of doing so would be astronomical. Secondly, where are you proposing to lock all these people up? Who is going to do the locking up?

Your logic did not carry through to say exactly what it is that pointed out he was "involved in terrorism" when the only information was that he attended the same gym as known terrorist. How many other people attend that gym? Does that make them all invovled as well?

p1stonhead

25,489 posts

166 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
WestyCarl said:
bmw535i said:
WestyCarl said:
OK, so let's say he was interned? (I'm avoiding the question you're avoiding of what evidence you need to intern someone wink) Don't you think that would have hardened the resolve of his known colleagues and friends to continue or even escalate the fight against the UK. Much like bombing, you intern one, but potentially recruit many others.

After all Guantanamo Bay didn't seem to work.
Yes, I dare say it would. As I have said several times, there are certainly issues with the idea.

People don't seem to like the fact I've raised it as an opinion. The same people also think it's fine to have an opinion about airstrikes, but with no alternative ideas. Strange really.
People are posting ideas (I did a few pages ago), it's just you're choosing to ignore them..........
It IS fine to have an opinion about airstrikes without having alternative ideas.



Everyone Else - bad that the coalition just killed so many civilians!

535i - Yeah but you dont have another solution!

Everyone Else - Did I say I did?

535i - Well you cant comment if you dont know anything about military strategy or dont know how else to go about it!

Everyone Else - We cant think its bad even in isolation of why the strike was ordered?

535i - No.

Everyone Else - Rigggghhht.....what do you think is the solution?

535i - I dont know, even though I was in the miltary. But dont criticise its mean!


laugh

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
AFTER the Westminster attack?

We have no details of the previous investigation into his involvement in terrorism. If he had been interned, he wouldn't have been able to carry out the Westminster attack.

I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss this really.
The details we have is that he was found not to be involved and was not under any form of suspicion of terrorist activities. You seem to have a different view, because it suits your agenda to fabricate stories about this. Your view is internment on suspicion, then investigate, then release if no evidence found. In Mahmood's case he would've been freed, so he could've carried out the attack.

I'm not sure why you refuse to see the contradiction in your argument and the obvious flaws in your views on internment.

srebbe64

13,021 posts

236 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
I arrived at Westminster Bridge about 4 minutes after the incident - I was in a taxi being driven from Waterloo to The RAC in Pall Mall. It was mayhem I can tell you. Police and sirens everywhere! We were told to use the next bridge down. I would have caught a slightly earlier train if there hadn't been a queue at the ticket office!

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
mcdjl said:
To be honest I'm not sure we as a country should be too keen on people who have been fighting on any (for/against ISIS, Assad, Turks) side out there coming back.
If their only nationality is British, then we have no choice under international law. They should, however, not be allowed back into society without very thorough debriefing and rehabilitation. They should also be put on the equivalent of parole for a long period if there are no grounds for imprisonment.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED