House of Commons shooting?

[anonymous-user]

BigLion said:

What a stupid and tangential question from him, I agree he must be 5 years old or a troll to not understand the very clear point you were raising.

You like defending terrorist.

[anonymous-user]

Been in jail for thuggery, likes going to the gym and steroids, converted to islam = strong candidate to be a terrorist.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

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?

So you are defining 'involved with terrorism' as 'involved with the TA Barracks plot'??



Brilliant.

I think it's only you that has called me obtuse. And when you did someone else called you something less than complimentary so you'll forgive me if I don't re-evaluate myself over it?

[mcdjl]

bmw535i said:

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.

You might have understood that he was involved. Who ever investigated him decided he wasn't. If you're happy to lock people up with no evidence against them, fine. I'm not and don't think we'll ever square that one off.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

So you are defining 'involved with terrorism' as 'involved with the TA Barracks plot'??



Brilliant.

I think it's only you that has called me obtuse. And when you did someone else called you something less than complimentary so you'll forgive me if I don't re-evaluate myself over it?

I think a plot involving a plan to detonate a bomb in a TA barracks would fall under the bracket of involved with terrorism.

It has been mentioned. Yes, several people have been insuilting on this thread - they were warned about it by the mods. I don't really see the need for it. It's fine to disagree, but there seems little point in being silly about it or being offended others opinions.

I guess you aren't going to answer the question I asked....

Just to remind you:

Bmw535i said:

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?

[anonymous-user]

mcdjl said:

You might have understood that he was involved. Who ever investigated him decided he wasn't. If you're happy to lock people up with no evidence against them, fine. I'm not and don't think we'll ever square that one off.

No worries, I never demanded that anyone agree with me. It's fine to have different opinions without the need to resort to silliness.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

So you are defining 'involved with terrorism' as 'involved with the TA Barracks plot'??



Brilliant.

I think it's only you that has called me obtuse. And when you did someone else called you something less than complimentary so you'll forgive me if I don't re-evaluate myself over it?

I think a plot involving a plan to detonate a bomb in a TA barracks would fall under the bracket of involved with terrorism.

It has been mentioned. Yes, several people have been insuilting on this thread - they were warned about it by the mods. I don't really see the need for it. It's fine to disagree, but there seems little point in being silly about it or being offended others opinions.

I guess you aren't going to answer the question I asked....

Just to remind you:

Bmw535i said:

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?

1. It seems a very narrow definition to me and if used as the basis for a detention policy, I think we'd see a lot of people walking free, given that only a few people were involved with that plot. As an example, I don't think the London bombers were involved with this particular plot so it wouldn't have been grounds to lock them up indefinitely. Amazed you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. Unworkable I'd say, so let's take internment off the table? Good.

2. With that out the way, how would I defeat IS? Not sure. I don't have enough information to be able to say. I am certain that poorly judged airstrikes that kill 200 civilians do far more damage to us than can be measured. I'd like to think we win through a combination of education and ignoring them. I'm open to suggestions but a categorical imperative for me is that we don't compromise the liberty of British citizens to 'win' this. Someone else pointed out that what we are really fighting is an ideology and everything I've ever read of politics and philosophy suggests that you can only really counter an ideology with education and time.

3. Yes, you say me being obtuse has been mentioned but I'm suggesting it's only by you. I think most people understand what I'm typing so without more evidence, I'm disinclined to make many changes to my posting language.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

1. It seems a very narrow definition to me and if used as the basis for a detention policy, I think we'd see a lot of people walking free, given that only a few people were involved with that plot. As an example, I don't think the London bombers were involved with this particular plot so it wouldn't have been grounds to lock them up indefinitely. Amazed you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. Unworkable I'd say, so let's take internment off the table? Good.

2. With that out the way, how would I defeat IS? Not sure. I don't have enough information to be able to say. I am certain that poorly judged airstrikes that kill 200 civilians do far more damage to us than can be measured. I'd like to think we win through a combination of education and ignoring them. I'm open to suggestions but a categorical imperative for me is that we don't compromise the liberty of British citizens to 'win' this. Someone else pointed out that what we are really fighting is an ideology and everything I've ever read of politics and philosophy suggests that you can only really counter an ideology with education and time.

3. Yes, you say me being obtuse has been mentioned but I'm suggesting it's only by you. I think most people understand what I'm typing so without more evidence, I'm disinclined to make many changes to my posting language.

Thank goodness, we appear to have swallowed a sensible pill

1. I don't think we can take internment off the table. After all, it is true that he was once involved with a terror plot - alleged to be the TA barracks one (for which several people are serving lengthy jail terms). It is also true that if were interned, Westminster would not have happened. Anyway, I think we should probably agree to disagree on this - rather like you said we would several pages ago. You can't seem to resist keep bringing it up though. I have been warned about your argumentative side to be fair.

2. I'm sorry, but education, time and ignoring are not strategies that are going to defeat ISIS. If you had been involved with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan you would probably understand this. By "poorly judged airstrikes" do you mean military mistakes, or are you suggesting it was a poorly judged intentional target? To be clear - airstrikes like that are not intentional, but sadly mistakes will happen. I don't think anyone has denied the negative effect they will have.

3. No it's not only by me. I'm not suggesting you should change your posting language by the way.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

1. It seems a very narrow definition to me and if used as the basis for a detention policy, I think we'd see a lot of people walking free, given that only a few people were involved with that plot. As an example, I don't think the London bombers were involved with this particular plot so it wouldn't have been grounds to lock them up indefinitely. Amazed you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. Unworkable I'd say, so let's take internment off the table? Good.

2. With that out the way, how would I defeat IS? Not sure. I don't have enough information to be able to say. I am certain that poorly judged airstrikes that kill 200 civilians do far more damage to us than can be measured. I'd like to think we win through a combination of education and ignoring them. I'm open to suggestions but a categorical imperative for me is that we don't compromise the liberty of British citizens to 'win' this. Someone else pointed out that what we are really fighting is an ideology and everything I've ever read of politics and philosophy suggests that you can only really counter an ideology with education and time.

3. Yes, you say me being obtuse has been mentioned but I'm suggesting it's only by you. I think most people understand what I'm typing so without more evidence, I'm disinclined to make many changes to my posting language.

Thank goodness, we appear to have swallowed a sensible pill

1. I don't think we can take internment off the table. After all, it is true that he was once involved with a terror plot - alleged to be the TA barracks one (for which several people are serving lengthy jail terms). It is also true that if were interned, Westminster would not have happened. Anyway, I think we should probably agree to disagree on this - rather like you said we would several pages ago. You can't seem to resist keep bringing it up though. I have been warned about your argumentative side to be fair.

2. I'm sorry, but education, time and ignoring are not strategies that are going to defeat ISIS. If you had been involved with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan you would probably understand this. By "poorly judged airstrikes" do you mean military mistakes, or are you suggesting it was a poorly judged intentional target? To be clear - airstrikes like that are not intentional, but sadly mistakes will happen. I don't think anyone has denied the negative effect they will have.

3. No it's not only by me. I'm not suggesting you should change your posting language by the way.

1. But your narrow definition of internment wouldn't have picked up anyone else - see my example for details.

2. I disagree that my involvement in a military operation would give me insight into how a non-military initiative would or wouldn't work. Unless you mean seeing the mess of things that the army makes would harden my resolve that other options are better>

3. Ok. Feel free to point it out in the thread.

[Murph7355]

Bmw535i said:

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?

That does not mean you carry on with a failed strategy regardless!

Stabbing myself in the arm doesn't cure my broken leg, but until I get better ideas I'll just keep stabbing myself in the arm!

For starters the "West" MUST stop being the face of aggression in that region. It has to be fronted up by the peoples of that region.

We also MUST have an end game for this that does not involve oil or infrastructure rebuilding contracts. It's no good knocking one despot off the throne to be replaced by another. This may mean acceptance that Western ideals of democracy and rights need to be parked.

Once we get those two things sorted out (and the first means no more air strikes by us), then we can be clear on who to support and ask them what support they need.

And if there can be no consensus from the local powers, then close the door and leave them to it, and focus 100% on protecting our own borders from any ensuing chaos until the chaos calms down. I'd include media restrictions in this.

[rscott]

Murph7355 said:

Bmw535i said:

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?

That does not mean you carry on with a failed strategy regardless!

Stabbing myself in the arm doesn't cure my broken leg, but until I get better ideas I'll just keep stabbing myself in the arm!

For starters the "West" MUST stop being the face of aggression in that region. It has to be fronted up by the peoples of that region.

We also MUST have an end game for this that does not involve oil or infrastructure rebuilding contracts. It's no good knocking one despot off the throne to be replaced by another. This may mean acceptance that Western ideals of democracy and rights need to be parked.

Once we get those two things sorted out (and the first means no more air strikes by us), then we can be clear on who to support and ask them what support they need.

And if there can be no consensus from the local powers, then close the door and leave them to it, and focus 100% on protecting our own borders from any ensuing chaos until the chaos calms down. I'd include media restrictions in this.

S'okay - the Donald promised to have a new plan in place within 30 days of taking power...

[Murph7355]

rscott said:

S'okay - the Donald promised to have a new plan in place within 30 days of taking power...

The US are the last ones that should be setting our foreign policy.

But even then, I'd rather have him in charge than HRC. Her track record in the region isn't shining.

[rscott]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

1. It seems a very narrow definition to me and if used as the basis for a detention policy, I think we'd see a lot of people walking free, given that only a few people were involved with that plot. As an example, I don't think the London bombers were involved with this particular plot so it wouldn't have been grounds to lock them up indefinitely. Amazed you think that would be a worthwhile exercise. Unworkable I'd say, so let's take internment off the table? Good.

2. With that out the way, how would I defeat IS? Not sure. I don't have enough information to be able to say. I am certain that poorly judged airstrikes that kill 200 civilians do far more damage to us than can be measured. I'd like to think we win through a combination of education and ignoring them. I'm open to suggestions but a categorical imperative for me is that we don't compromise the liberty of British citizens to 'win' this. Someone else pointed out that what we are really fighting is an ideology and everything I've ever read of politics and philosophy suggests that you can only really counter an ideology with education and time.

3. Yes, you say me being obtuse has been mentioned but I'm suggesting it's only by you. I think most people understand what I'm typing so without more evidence, I'm disinclined to make many changes to my posting language.

Thank goodness, we appear to have swallowed a sensible pill

1. I don't think we can take internment off the table. After all, it is true that he was once involved with a terror plot - alleged to be the TA barracks one (for which several people are serving lengthy jail terms). It is also true that if were interned, Westminster would not have happened. Anyway, I think we should probably agree to disagree on this - rather like you said we would several pages ago. You can't seem to resist keep bringing it up though. I have been warned about your argumentative side to be fair.

You keep mentioning his involvement with the TA plot. Far as I can find, all newspaper reports suggest his only 'involvement' was living near one of those convicted and attending the same gym. Can you provide a link to a report suggesting otherwise?

[Nardiola]

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 benefitting from the encryption to avoid surveillance.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 28th March 10:57

The thing I fail to understand about this WhatsApp thing, what difference would it have made in this case? Two minutes before he murdered some people with a car he was on WhatsApp, doing what? Sending selfies? In that time would anyone have been able to react? If WhatsApp were to be unencrypted, then who is going to be set up to scan all the conversations everywhere? Would they put tracers on specific 'known' individuals or just look for keywords?

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

1. But your narrow definition of internment wouldn't have picked up anyone else - see my example for details.

2. I disagree that my involvement in a military operation would give me insight into how a non-military initiative would or wouldn't work. Unless you mean seeing the mess of things that the army makes would harden my resolve that other options are better>

3. Ok. Feel free to point it out in the thread.

1. It would. Either we agree to disagree (again) or just continue to argue the point - I don't see as that will achieve anything other than frustrate you as it already appears to have done.

2. You're being obtuse, it is quite clear what I meant. Unless you are face to face with radical insurgents in an operational theatre, you will not understand that just ignoring them or giving them time will not work. Once again, the (unofficial) term 'armchair warrior' springs to mind.

3. It isn't in this thread - I didn't say it was.

[Disastrous]

rscott said:

You keep mentioning his involvement with the TA plot. Far as I can find, all newspaper reports suggest his only 'involvement' was living near one of those convicted and attending the same gym. Can you provide a link to a report suggesting otherwise?

I'm trying to imagine how he plans on getting tough on terror with these criteria.


>knock on door at zero dark thirty (it's a military term-you wouldn't understand)<

Anti-terror Stasi: S'cuse me sir, have you ever been involved with the TA plot?

Mohammed Al-Baghdadi: No! Leave this place at once before I cut out your heart, white Satans!!!

Anti-terror Stasi: >carefully checks list< Well, looks like you're in the clear then - sorry to have bothered you sir!

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

1. But your narrow definition of internment wouldn't have picked up anyone else - see my example for details.

2. I disagree that my involvement in a military operation would give me insight into how a non-military initiative would or wouldn't work. Unless you mean seeing the mess of things that the army makes would harden my resolve that other options are better>

3. Ok. Feel free to point it out in the thread.

1. It would. Either we agree to disagree (again) or just continue to argue the point - I don't see as that will achieve anything other than frustrate you as it already appears to have done.

2. You're being obtuse, it is quite clear what I meant. Unless you are face to face with radical insurgents in an operational theatre, you will not understand that just ignoring them or giving them time will not work. Once again, the (unofficial) term 'armchair warrior' springs to mind.

3. It isn't in this thread - I didn't say it was.

Only 4 people were jailed over the TA bombing plot. And they've already been jailed. So how can you catch anyone else if nobody else was involved with it? It's the most insane criteria for 'involved with terrorism' I've ever read.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Bmw535i said:

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?

That does not mean you carry on with a failed strategy regardless!

Stabbing myself in the arm doesn't cure my broken leg, but until I get better ideas I'll just keep stabbing myself in the arm!

For starters the "West" MUST stop being the face of aggression in that region. It has to be fronted up by the peoples of that region.

We also MUST have an end game for this that does not involve oil or infrastructure rebuilding contracts. It's no good knocking one despot off the throne to be replaced by another. This may mean acceptance that Western ideals of democracy and rights need to be parked.

Once we get those two things sorted out (and the first means no more air strikes by us), then we can be clear on who to support and ask them what support they need.

And if there can be no consensus from the local powers, then close the door and leave them to it, and focus 100% on protecting our own borders from any ensuing chaos until the chaos calms down. I'd include media restrictions in this.

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.

[BigLion]

Raygun said:

BigLion said:

What a stupid and tangential question from him, I agree he must be 5 years old or a troll to not understand the very clear point you were raising.

You like defending terrorist.

Que???

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

You keep mentioning his involvement with the TA plot. Far as I can find, all newspaper reports suggest his only 'involvement' was living near one of those convicted and attending the same gym. Can you provide a link to a report suggesting otherwise?

I don't think I have suggested otherwise.

Disastrous said:

Only 4 people were jailed over the TA bombing plot. And they've already been jailed. So how can you catch anyone else if nobody else was involved with it? It's the most insane criteria for 'involved with terrorism' I've ever read.

Khlid Masood was investigated by MI5 for involvement in that plot.