House of Commons shooting?

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

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.

And aside from him? How many other people were investigated for that plot? A handful at best? Hardly going to solve the problem, is it? What about all these people coming home you worry about? Assuming they weren't involved in terrorism (because you've defined that means 'being involved in the TA plot' now) how do we stop them?

[Gavia]

bmw535i said:

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

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.

[rscott]

bmw535i said:

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.

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?

[_dobbo_]

Nardiola said:

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?

Presumably the idea is that you could see what he sent to see if this intelligence would lead to other arrests or stop other attacks. No possibility it could be used to prevent attacks in the first place though. The Paris attackers used SMS, and they weren't stopped, so the idea that decrypting the traffic on whatsapp could stop an attack by someone who wasn't already being watched is utterly ridiculous.

Unless you believe Home Secretary Rudd who says we should get together:

"the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags, to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, stop it getting up in the first place"

You know, those necessary hastags like #justofftodoajihad #iamaterrorist #yoloswag

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Assuming they weren't involved in terrorism (because you've defined that means 'being involved in the TA plot' now)

Ah the obtuse again. Other terrorist activites are available

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.

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?

Those involved in terrorism. I think I have conveyed my thoughts on this previously.

I am not sure why the same questions are getting asked over and over. It really doesn't seem to achieve much other than irritate you all. I would suggest we just agree to disagree?

I have put forward an idea for internment - I've said several times it definitely won't happen, is impractical and not without it's failings. Some people have said the idea concerns them because I have the power to vote - can't say as I've seen the policy on an election manifesto.

Similarly, some of you have spent page after page deriding our military strategy to defeat ISIS without coming up with an viable alternative - pointless really.

[Disastrous]

You defined 'involved with terrorism' as 'being involved with the TA plot'.

That would only have put away a handful of people, even if you widen that to include people investigated but found innocent.

If you want to change how you are defining 'involved with terrorism' to something more useful, that's fine, but perhaps share it with us here?

[jjlynn27]

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?

Why bother? Everyone who was ever investigated should be in prison for ever. And we should bomb ISIS HQ more. Because it's there, on the google maps. If the tactic is failing that just means that we need more bombs.

[Gavia]

bmw535i said:

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.

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?

Those involved in terrorism. I think I have conveyed my thoughts on this previously.

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.

[mcdjl]

Disastrous said:

You defined 'involved with terrorism' as 'being involved with the TA plot'.

That would only have put away a handful of people, even if you widen that to include people investigated but found innocent.

If you want to change how you are defining 'involved with terrorism' to something more useful, that's fine, but perhaps share it with us here?

Any one whos ever been investigated for going to the same gym as a terrorist (apart from BMW535i cos he promises hes not a terrorist, hes got security clearance and his word is good enough) and had no evidence found against them, as well as people who do have evidence against them. Hes stated that hes effectively happy to have people locked up on the basis no evidence they're guilty of anything, so theres really no hope to get anything the rest of us might consider to be sensible. The only way i can see Km should have been locked up following on from being found not to be involved with the TA barracks is if someone had a crystal ball/Tardis.

[Disastrous]

mcdjl said:

Disastrous said:

You defined 'involved with terrorism' as 'being involved with the TA plot'.

That would only have put away a handful of people, even if you widen that to include people investigated but found innocent.

If you want to change how you are defining 'involved with terrorism' to something more useful, that's fine, but perhaps share it with us here?

Any one whos ever been investigated for going to the same gym as a terrorist (apart from BMW535i cos he promises hes not a terrorist, hes got security clearance and his word is good enough) and had no evidence found against them, as well as people who do have evidence against them. Hes stated that hes effectively happy to have people locked up on the basis no evidence they're guilty of anything, so theres really no hope to get anything the rest of us might consider to be sensible. The only way i can see Km should have been locked up following on from being found not to be involved with the TA barracks is if someone had a crystal ball/Tardis.

Careful - he'll be warning you that a mysterious cabal he is in contact with has noted that you are being obtuse!

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

You defined 'involved with terrorism' as 'being involved with the TA plot'.

That would only have put away a handful of people, even if you widen that to include people investigated but found innocent.

If you want to change how you are defining 'involved with terrorism' to something more useful, that's fine, but perhaps share it with us here?

It's an example of involvment with terrorism. Your obtuse nature obviously failed to recognise what I meant. That's fair enough.

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.

[del mar]

Countdown said:

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.

Agreed we should not get involved in the Yemen at all.

Comic Relief on Friday - There are starving children in Yemen please give generously.

Getting involved / not getting involved is so complex.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

You defined 'involved with terrorism' as 'being involved with the TA plot'.

That would only have put away a handful of people, even if you widen that to include people investigated but found innocent.

If you want to change how you are defining 'involved with terrorism' to something more useful, that's fine, but perhaps share it with us here?

It's an example of involvment with terrorism. Your obtuse nature obviously failed to recognise what I meant. That's fair enough.

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.

So once again, no you won't share your definition.

Ok, and I'm the obtuse one!

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

So once again, no you won't share your definition.

Ok, and I'm the obtuse one!

I would have thought the phrase 'involved with terrorism' would be quite self explanatory. I used the TA barracks plot and Khalid Masood as an example of someone being involved in it.

I don't really understand your fixation on this particular phrase to be honest. I think it has been covered enough.

It has been said you're obtuse, yes.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

So once again, no you won't share your definition.

Ok, and I'm the obtuse one!

I would have thought the phrase 'involved with terrorism' would be quite self explanatory. I used the TA barracks plot and Khalid Masood as an example of someone being involved in it.

I don't really understand your fixation on this particular phrase to be honest. I think it has been covered enough.

It has been said you're obtuse, yes.

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...

[anonymous-user]

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.

[Disastrous]

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.

[danllama]

This tit for tat is very frustrating!

[Disastrous]

danllama said:

This tit for tat is very frustrating!

Tell me about it - I only want a straight answer.

But fair enough and in the interests of drawing a line under this:

It is fundamental wrong, verging on irresponsible to call for internment without trial based on the vague notion of 'involvement with terrorism' and then when pushed to define what that means, what shape it actually would take, and how it might work, to hide behind a passive aggressive pattern of simply mumbling "Involvement with terrorism means anyone involved with terrorism..." over and over again and pretending not to understand what's being asked.

I'll bow out but just want to highlight how absurd a 'solution' it is, and how it flies in the face of all the principles of freedom that we ought to stand for.

[Nardiola]

_dobbo_ said:

Nardiola said:

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?

Presumably the idea is that you could see what he sent to see if this intelligence would lead to other arrests or stop other attacks. No possibility it could be used to prevent attacks in the first place though. The Paris attackers used SMS, and they weren't stopped, so the idea that decrypting the traffic on whatsapp could stop an attack by someone who wasn't already being watched is utterly ridiculous.

Unless you believe Home Secretary Rudd who says we should get together:

"the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags, to stop this stuff even being put up, not just taking it down, stop it getting up in the first place"

You know, those necessary hastags like #justofftodoajihad #iamaterrorist #yoloswag

That's pretty much what I was getting at, I heard Rudd on Radio 5 the other day and immediately thought she clearly had no idea how WhatsApp encryption technology or indeed any technology works, but was jumping on the word 'encryption' to somehow tie it back to terrorists being able to communicate freely without anybody knowing. I was considering if this was another attempt at governmental intrusiveness into personal data to 'prevent terrorism', hence why I was wondering why she thought by removing this encryption we could somehow prevent terrorism in the future. Bloody luddites.