House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
bmw535i said:
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.
It is quite a statement to say that someone is a terrorist and needs locking up indefinitely with no evidence. Just looking to see what you knew that we didn't in forming that opinion as stated earlier. You have said that you don't.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.
I am not having a pop at you - given that for just a second we agree internment upon suspicion was a good thing...
I was just trying to understand your rationale behind stating earlier that this specific bloke was a terrorist, should not have been released after the initial enquiry had turned up no evidence (we assume). I still am trying to work out from your responses to my questions how we could have had grounds under your program to inter this bloke with any valid grounds and prevent his actions last week - I.e., either he was interned while under suspicion, or evidence had arisen from the investigation that he should remain in custody.
I just couldn't see any of that anywhere.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think we all understand now. Hindsight.
SeeFive said:
It is quite a statement to say that someone is a terrorist and needs locking up indefinitely with no evidence. Just looking to see what you knew that we didn't in forming that opinion as stated earlier. You have said that you don't.
I am not having a pop at you - given that for just a second we agree internment upon suspicion was a good thing...
I was just trying to understand your rationale behind stating earlier that this specific bloke was a terrorist, should not have been released after the initial enquiry had turned up no evidence (we assume). I still am trying to work out from your responses to my questions how we could have had grounds under your program to inter this bloke with any valid grounds and prevent his actions last week - I.e., either he was interned while under suspicion, or evidence had arisen from the investigation that he should remain in custody.
I just couldn't see any of that anywhere.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think we all understand now. Hindsight.
He was a terrorist.I am not having a pop at you - given that for just a second we agree internment upon suspicion was a good thing...
I was just trying to understand your rationale behind stating earlier that this specific bloke was a terrorist, should not have been released after the initial enquiry had turned up no evidence (we assume). I still am trying to work out from your responses to my questions how we could have had grounds under your program to inter this bloke with any valid grounds and prevent his actions last week - I.e., either he was interned while under suspicion, or evidence had arisen from the investigation that he should remain in custody.
I just couldn't see any of that anywhere.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think we all understand now. Hindsight.
To be fair I was warned that my comments would get misconstrued and I'd be misquoted.
When we assume.........
You know I don't actually have a program
It was merely an opinion - a bit like the ones saying bombing ISIS is bad. Nothing more, nothing less - just an opinion.bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
how do we stop them?
Internment.Gavia said:
And found not to be involved.
Your stance is contradictory. Initially you wanted to lock people up on suspicion of involvement and then release after an investigation. As Mahmoud would have been locked up and then freed under your criteria, then internment would not have prevented the Westminster attack.
I don't think Khalid Masood should have been released.Your stance is contradictory. Initially you wanted to lock people up on suspicion of involvement and then release after an investigation. As Mahmoud would have been locked up and then freed under your criteria, then internment would not have prevented the Westminster attack.
rscott said:
He was investigated, but not charged, yet you suggest he should have been locked up indefinitely anyway. What criteria are you using to determine which ones to lock up anyway and which not to?
You suggest internment. It would appear that with or without internment, Masood was investigated and no grounds arose to lock him up. So he was rightly released at that time.
Clearly had grounds arisen, like he had previously driven a car at speed at pedestrians and stabbed a copper, he would have been locked up. So if today's hindsight was evidence to an investigation, yes locking him up would have been the right thing to do. But prior to that act, he apparently showed no signs - big assumption but for quite a few reasons, I trust that to be the case.
You know, I don't think anyone on here would disagree with you on that.
bmw535i said:
WestyCarl said:
bmw535i said:
He was a terrorist.
Last week, but doesn't mean he was a terrorist when MI5 investigated him.The investigation at the time could turn up no evidence of terrorist activity to confirm their suspicion. Your hindsight of last week tells you they should have. So would you have just locked him up anyway way back then with no evidence just in case?
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
Another truism.
Indeed, but some will disagree In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
. I am sure if MI5 had the slightest evidence against him he'd have been charged or put on a watch list.Alpinestars said:
With a truism?
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
WestyCarl said:
bmw535i said:
It doesn't mean he wasn't either......
As our experts didn't charge him or put him on a watch list I'd guess he wasn'tWould an uninteresting truism be something like, "civilian casualties as a result of air strikes cause people to hate the west"?
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
With a truism?
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
WestyCarl said:
bmw535i said:
It doesn't mean he wasn't either......
As our experts didn't charge him or put him on a watch list I'd guess he wasn'tWould an uninteresting truism be something like, "civilian casualties as a result of air strikes cause people to hate the west"?
mcdjl said:
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
With a truism?
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
In the last few minutes you've said, had Masood been locked up he would not have been able to commit the crime he did. And that he may or may not have been a terrorist. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. It's the definition of a truism, and often truisms are uninteresting.
WestyCarl said:
bmw535i said:
It doesn't mean he wasn't either......
As our experts didn't charge him or put him on a watch list I'd guess he wasn'tWould an uninteresting truism be something like, "civilian casualties as a result of air strikes cause people to hate the west"?
bmw535i said:
SeeFive said:
So therefore we should believe that as an outcome of that investigation, he was a terrorist who should have been locked up indefinitely, but they didn't bother?
I don't follow that lack of logic.
We can believe whatever we want I suppose.I don't follow that lack of logic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff