House of Commons shooting?

[mcdjl]

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.

I think prior to the Westminster attack he was known to security services as a result of their investigation into the TA attack. The results of that investigation were that he wasn't known to be involved in (with) terrorism. Anyone with security clearance is known to security services, they're not known by the security services to be involved in terrorism.

[anonymous-user]

WestyCarl said:

People are posting ideas (I did a few pages ago), it's just you're choosing to ignore them..........

Do you mean this one?

WestyCarl said:

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

Or this one?

WestyCarl said:

I'd go a step further and suggest ISIS is now just a philosophy to some people. The Police are saying that the Westminster terrorist had no links to ISIS, however his attacked was clearly inspired by them.

Unfortunately, the more you bomb from drones, the more this feeds into the ISIS philosophy, recruiting more followers. It seems that the Pandora's box was opened around the 1st Gulf war and now we can't put the lid back on.

It may not be a popular idea, but I would support putting a lot more money into propaganda and support for the communities / countries that ISIS are trying to gain support in.

Bottom line from what I can see is that we need communities all over the world to reject the ISIS idea and I can't see how we achieve that by bombing them.

I didn't realise I should have commented on it. There appears to be criticism of airstrikes, but no actual alternative idea apart from rejecting ISIS. I am unsure what you mean by spending more money on propoganda - I think most people are aware ISIS is bad.

[amusingduck]

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.

I thought it was originally "investigated for", not "involved with"?

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

WestyCarl said:

People are posting ideas (I did a few pages ago), it's just you're choosing to ignore them..........

Do you mean this one?

WestyCarl said:

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

Or this one?

WestyCarl said:

I'd go a step further and suggest ISIS is now just a philosophy to some people. The Police are saying that the Westminster terrorist had no links to ISIS, however his attacked was clearly inspired by them.

Unfortunately, the more you bomb from drones, the more this feeds into the ISIS philosophy, recruiting more followers. It seems that the Pandora's box was opened around the 1st Gulf war and now we can't put the lid back on.

It may not be a popular idea, but I would support putting a lot more money into propaganda and support for the communities / countries that ISIS are trying to gain support in.

Bottom line from what I can see is that we need communities all over the world to reject the ISIS idea and I can't see how we achieve that by bombing them.

I didn't realise I should have commented on it. There appears to be criticism of airstrikes, but no actual alternative idea apart from rejecting ISIS. I am unsure what you mean by spending more money on propoganda - I think most people are aware ISIS is bad.

You yourself said it isnt working. I dont see how you are suddenly surprised other people agree with you.

bmw535i said:

Trying to destroy them in Iraq and Syria doesn't seem to have worked. Similarly, trying to destroy the taliban in Afghanistan didn't work either. (I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan).

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

No, it's what YOU said would be required to lock someone up indefinitely.

The phrase 'involved in terrorism' wasn't coined by me.

Disastrous said:

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

This is the third time you have said so.

Shakermaker said:

I'm sure they did.

Very confusing, they either knew more than we do in this thread or they didn't.

Shakermaker said:

Secondly, where are you proposing to lock all these people up? Who is going to do the locking up?

I don't know.

Shakermaker said:

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?

I dare say MI5 have more information than that about it.

p1stonhead said:

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.

Where have I said that?

p1stonhead said:

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

Why the emphasis on 'was'? I don't recall saying the criticism is mean - I agree with a lot of it.

Gavia said:

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

I do see the flaws in it - I have said many times it isn't without it's issues and problems.

mcdjl said:

I think prior to the Westminster attack he was known to security services as a result of their investigation into the TA attack. The results of that investigation were that he wasn't known to be involved in (with) terrorism. Anyone with security clearance is known to security services, they're not known by the security services to be involved in terrorism.

I notice you alluded earlier that getting security clearance was tantamount to being investigated for terrorism.

p1stonhead said:

You yourself said it isnt working. I dont see how you are suddenly surprised other people agree with you.

I said it doesn't seem to be - it is probably too early to tell. I don't really think there is an alternative approach at the moment though.

[WestyCarl]

bmw535i said:

I didn't realise I should have commented on it. There appears to be criticism of airstrikes, but no actual alternative idea apart from rejecting ISIS. I am unsure what you mean by spending more money on propoganda - I think most people are aware ISIS is bad.

You didn't have to comment on it, but it was an idea.

In the West in our nice comfy life reading the odd story, yes ISIS are bad. However in other countries they have support so they must have some appeal to the locals.

https://www.statista.com/chart/4227/support-for-is...

Somehow the West must eliminate this support for the ISIS philosophy. Proper Propaganda and actual support for these communities might be a good start rather than bombing form drones.....

[mcdjl]

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I think prior to the Westminster attack he was known to security services as a result of their investigation into the TA attack. The results of that investigation were that he wasn't known to be involved in (with) terrorism. Anyone with security clearance is known to security services, they're not known by the security services to be involved in terrorism.

I notice you alluded earlier that getting security clearance was tantamount to being investigated for terrorism.

Sorry i didn't mean to be as subtle as to only allude to it. I'm fairly sure that when you get security clearance they do check (investigate) that you're not a terrorist. Fairly damn pointless doing the check otherwise isn't it?

[anonymous-user]

mcdjl said:

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I think prior to the Westminster attack he was known to security services as a result of their investigation into the TA attack. The results of that investigation were that he wasn't known to be involved in (with) terrorism. Anyone with security clearance is known to security services, they're not known by the security services to be involved in terrorism.

I notice you alluded earlier that getting security clearance was tantamount to being investigated for terrorism.

Sorry i didn't mean to be as subtle as to only allude to it. I'm fairly sure that when you get security clearance they do check (investigate) that you're not a terrorist. Fairly damn pointless doing the check otherwise isn't it?

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

[Shakermaker]

bmw535i said:

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

have you not?

CRC = criminal records check, very common for lots of jobs these days, especially those working in schools, hospitals and airports to name a few.

But then there is also CTC = Counter Terrorist Check - which checks that you aren't involved in terrorism. Used for security personnel in airports, I would assume police, and many others as well.

[p1stonhead]

Shakermaker said:

bmw535i said:

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

have you not?

CRC = criminal records check, very common for lots of jobs these days, especially those working in schools, hospitals and airports to name a few.

But then there is also CTC = Counter Terrorist Check - which checks that you aren't involved in terrorism. Used for security personnel in airports, I would assume police, and many others as well.

I had the latter done on me and the missus due to a family member with a certain job.

st am I going to prison indefinitely?

[Shakermaker]

p1stonhead said:

I had the latter done on me and the missus due to a family member with a certain job.

st am I going to prison indefinitely?

You've been investigated for Terrorism.

To the gulag you will go.

I'm OK though, my job only requires me to have CRC clearance.

[mcdjl]

p1stonhead said:

Shakermaker said:

bmw535i said:

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

have you not?

CRC = criminal records check, very common for lots of jobs these days, especially those working in schools, hospitals and airports to name a few.

But then there is also CTC = Counter Terrorist Check - which checks that you aren't involved in terrorism. Used for security personnel in airports, I would assume police, and many others as well.

I had the latter done on me and the missus due to a family member with a certain job.

st am I going to prison indefinitely?

Did they try to ask you any trick questions like 'are you a terrorist?'?

FYI I never refereed to it as a 'terrorism investigation' either. I'm fairly certain though that one of the causes of failing to get a security clearance would be 'being a terrorist'. To determine if you are they'll have to check/investigate, no?

[mcdjl]

Shakermaker said:

p1stonhead said:

I had the latter done on me and the missus due to a family member with a certain job.

st am I going to prison indefinitely?

You've been investigated for Terrorism.

To the gulag you will go.

I'm OK though, my job only requires me to have CRC clearance.

Thats, fine being a terrorist isn't a criminal offence

[SeeFive]

535. I have jus been trying to catch up and I am very confused by your reasoning. Others seem to be the same. Please help us all here.

You suggest internment of suspected terrorists - Let's leave he pros and cons that to one side for a moment and just agree with you that is a good way forward... just for a second.

Given that we have that option, what specific activities and involvement are you aware of at the time the Westminster bridge perp was investigated for terrorism would lead your mind to say at that stage of his life, he was a terrorist - just to be clear, that is before he acted as such last week? Please just list the items, nothing else.

If there are no specific activities or involvement in terrorist activity that you can list, then how can you or anyone else justify locking someone up "cos we fink ees a baddun sarge "?

[anonymous-user]

Shakermaker said:

bmw535i said:

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

have you not?

CRC = criminal records check, very common for lots of jobs these days, especially those working in schools, hospitals and airports to name a few.

But then there is also CTC = Counter Terrorist Check - which checks that you aren't involved in terrorism. Used for security personnel in airports, I would assume police, and many others as well.

Ah fair enough - that isn't an area I am familiar with.

I've never heard of CRC checks - I thought it was all covered by a DBS check.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

Given that we have that option, what specific activities and involvement are you aware of at the time the Westminster bridge perp was investigated for terrorism would lead your mind to say at that stage of his life, he was a terrorist - just to be clear, that is before he acted as such last week? Please just list the items, nothing else.

I'm afraid I haven't been involved in any investigation into Khalid Masood so I am not aware of his activities and involvement prior to the attack.

[Shakermaker]

bmw535i said:

Shakermaker said:

bmw535i said:

Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but I've never heard a security clearance check being referred to as a terrorism investigation before.

have you not?

CRC = criminal records check, very common for lots of jobs these days, especially those working in schools, hospitals and airports to name a few.

But then there is also CTC = Counter Terrorist Check - which checks that you aren't involved in terrorism. Used for security personnel in airports, I would assume police, and many others as well.

Ah fair enough - that isn't an area I am familiar with.

I've never heard of CRC checks - I thought it was all covered by a DBS check.

Aah yes, in fact, what used to be a CRC is now a DBS check.

However, the CTC check is more in depth than a DBS check, and is required for people who potentially will have access to more
secure areas/more secretive data, and I don't know to what level they actually go but it costs a fair amount more than the DBS check which goes as far as checking your record and listing any offences you might have. Not whether or not you have known ties to groups or similar and that you might then be able to exploit a new job/new access level to profit from.

[SeeFive]

bmw535i said:

SeeFive said:

Given that we have that option, what specific activities and involvement are you aware of at the time the Westminster bridge perp was investigated for terrorism would lead your mind to say at that stage of his life, he was a terrorist - just to be clear, that is before he acted as such last week? Please just list the items, nothing else.

I'm afraid I haven't been involved in any investigation into Khalid Masood so I am not aware of his activities and involvement prior to the attack.

So, given that, how do you justify your statement earlier that he should not have been released?

[anonymous-user]

Shakermaker said:

Aah yes, in fact, what used to be a CRC is now a DBS check.

However, the CTC check is more in depth than a DBS check, and is required for people who potentially will have access to more
secure areas/more secretive data, and I don't know to what level they actually go but it costs a fair amount more than the DBS check which goes as far as checking your record and listing any offences you might have. Not whether or not you have known ties to groups or similar and that you might then be able to exploit a new job/new access level to profit from.

DBS is cheap and quite basic - I had it done recently. DV and SC are generally the levels held I am more familiar with.

SeeFive said:

So, given that, how do you justify your statement earlier that he should not have been released?

I didn't realise we had to provide analysis, just statements

I don't actually recall saying he shouldn't, but if I did, the statement was made with the benefit of hindsight. Rather like the ones where people say Iraq war caused ISIS etc.

[Alpinestars]

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.

If we ban all forms of automobiles on roads, there would be no more road traffic accidents. Any more truisms?