Guest alex Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Against my better judgement Im going to actually try and chip in. No doubt most of it will be misunderstood and I'll be labelled a wishy washy leftie whatever. .......... 145874[/snapback] I'll answer this later. Busy. I don't dodge questions like Renton, and Alex particularly. Some good points. 145995[/snapback] Talk about making stuff up. How old are you again? FFS! I've asked you about 3 times now about this mysterious question you want me to answer but you haven't supplied it. What question Leazes? (I stick to what I said before that I'll only answer it if you will give your answer by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15742 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Busy. No time. To post. The same thing. Again and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Deja vu - or was that the name of the Brazilian guy shot to send a message to suicide bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I think Leazes must base his policy for combatting terrorism on the film 'Minority Report'. Similarly, I'm supposed to answer a question he hasn't asked me yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10047 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Personally the Government should make a statement that the remains of anyone killed in carrying out, or attempting to carry out, a terrorist act will NOT be returned to their families but will be buried with/in a pigs carcass. That’ll put the 100 virgins off a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 another outbreak of tolerance I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22050 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Deporting someone who shouldn't be here, and making sure they don't get back, or deservedly executing them if we can't deport them - until the rest understand what will happen to them if they are caught bombing innocent Britons, 2 year old children or anyone indiscriminately, on British soil, is guaranteed to stop them re-offending. Correct or not ? Btw, I'd love to know how the threat of execution is a deterrent to a suicide bomber. Care to enlighten me Leazes (see, that is a simple straight forward question you should be able to answer). 145816[/snapback] Thats a fair point, if you are talking about suicide bombers. But I wasn't, I was talking about any terrorist. See, Renton. Thats called an answer. I will go further, although you might not agree. Suicide bombers may be happy to give up their lives for the love of Allah in the way they choose, but a long lingering torturous one *, or even one in a manner they don't choose instead, might not be quite so attractive. *EDIT. Read to mean "prison sentence".....I haven't got time..... 145823[/snapback] I was under the impression that the main problem was from suicide bombers like, maybe they just cocked up badly on 7/7. you should try reading the post then And now I'm confused. Are you suggesting they get a life prison sentence (which I would advocate), or they are they are executed? Which is it? 145830[/snapback] I think its quite clear. I plainly said if they shouldn't be here, then they are out. [What do you think of the airline hijackers who have been allowed to stay in the country BTW] If they are UK citizens, then a long sentence of utter misery as an example to others, if they are caught. If they are caught after killing innocent civilians, then the death penalty, after a short time on our own version of death row complete with breaking rocks for 16 hours a day and wiping their arse with a nail. Also as an example. What is YOUR alternative ? And even for someone of limited intelligence, I don't think I could be much plainer. 145991[/snapback] I would say that was the first post you have made your opinion clear on what sentences terrorists should get. Pretty immature viewpoint imo, I would normally expect to hear stuff like that from a 12 year old. You continually insist I claim to have all the answers. Not once have I ever said I had an answer for anything though, not once. Unlike you I realise the world is a complicated place and there are no easy answers, if any. I honestly don't think your "solutions" are anything of the sort though as: 1) I don't believe any islamic terrorist can be deterred by any threat we can give to him on what will happen if he's caught. 2) Closing the borders will not work as the terrorists who commit these acts are proven to be home grown. You also admit we simply can't close our borders to the EU, so even if they were coming from abroad, how would you stop them entering through France? Fwiw I think we have to live with the problem and unfortunately the occasional bombing. Mind, I don't think the threat is all that great - if it is then it proves out intelligence services are incompetent, which is pretty worrying I guess. So I guess for the minute we just keep plodding along hoping the next attack is not too severe, or that it can be intercepted. Much like we did in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s with the IRA. You can call this burying my head in the sand if you like, as LP says I think it's called realism. You offer no real solutions at all though, other than we should punish terrorists (no shit), close borders (we can't) and maybe we should invade Iran or not - you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46195 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Stop arguing with him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 11 pages, and I've only read the last two. I'm guessing the previous 9 have something to do with towel heads and Fat Fred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Stop arguing with him! 146081[/snapback] seconded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Such a roundabout way for LM to say no pakis or blacks in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Deporting someone who shouldn't be here, and making sure they don't get back, or deservedly executing them if we can't deport them - until the rest understand what will happen to them if they are caught bombing innocent Britons, 2 year old children or anyone indiscriminately, on British soil, is guaranteed to stop them re-offending. Correct or not ? Btw, I'd love to know how the threat of execution is a deterrent to a suicide bomber. Care to enlighten me Leazes (see, that is a simple straight forward question you should be able to answer). 145816[/snapback] Thats a fair point, if you are talking about suicide bombers. But I wasn't, I was talking about any terrorist. See, Renton. Thats called an answer. I will go further, although you might not agree. Suicide bombers may be happy to give up their lives for the love of Allah in the way they choose, but a long lingering torturous one *, or even one in a manner they don't choose instead, might not be quite so attractive. *EDIT. Read to mean "prison sentence".....I haven't got time..... 145823[/snapback] I was under the impression that the main problem was from suicide bombers like, maybe they just cocked up badly on 7/7. you should try reading the post then And now I'm confused. Are you suggesting they get a life prison sentence (which I would advocate), or they are they are executed? Which is it? 145830[/snapback] I think its quite clear. I plainly said if they shouldn't be here, then they are out. [What do you think of the airline hijackers who have been allowed to stay in the country BTW] If they are UK citizens, then a long sentence of utter misery as an example to others, if they are caught. If they are caught after killing innocent civilians, then the death penalty, after a short time on our own version of death row complete with breaking rocks for 16 hours a day and wiping their arse with a nail. Also as an example. What is YOUR alternative ? And even for someone of limited intelligence, I don't think I could be much plainer. 145991[/snapback] I would say that was the first post you have made your opinion clear on what sentences terrorists should get. Pretty immature viewpoint imo, I would normally expect to hear stuff like that from a 12 year old. You continually insist I claim to have all the answers. Not once have I ever said I had an answer for anything though, not once. Unlike you I realise the world is a complicated place and there are no easy answers, if any. I honestly don't think your "solutions" are anything of the sort though as: 1) I don't believe any islamic terrorist can be deterred by any threat we can give to him on what will happen if he's caught. 2) Closing the borders will not work as the terrorists who commit these acts are proven to be home grown. You also admit we simply can't close our borders to the EU, so even if they were coming from abroad, how would you stop them entering through France? Fwiw I think we have to live with the problem and unfortunately the occasional bombing. Mind, I don't think the threat is all that great - if it is then it proves out intelligence services are incompetent, which is pretty worrying I guess. So I guess for the minute we just keep plodding along hoping the next attack is not too severe, or that it can be intercepted. Much like we did in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s with the IRA. You can call this burying my head in the sand if you like, as LP says I think it's called realism. You offer no real solutions at all though, other than we should punish terrorists (no shit), close borders (we can't) and maybe we should invade Iran or not - you don't know. 146054[/snapback] Keep it going Renton. For someone who thinks they are intelligent, its pretty immature to attempt to talk down someone just because you disagree with them. My opinions are based on life experience, and an awareness of reality. What are yours based on ? You are giving more of an impression that you are just reading from a book, all the time. I have said we can't stop them, or all of them if they are already inside the EU. However I have said what I would do to them. You can disagree as much as you like, but doing it my way means they won't do it again. Guaranteed. When the reality sinks in what will happen to them, I keep saying this, but if it deters one person it is worthwhile, and if just one bomb goes off that is detonated by someone who should not be here, it also vindicates my comments too. Lastly, if you think the threat has not grown in the last decade, and therefore will not continue without a change in policy, then you are sadly out of touch with reality. As for the security services, they might just do a better job if people would let them get on with their job rather than creating a situation whereby they go into life threatening situations knowing the do gooder brigade will crucify them for the simple act of reacting first if someone appears to be about to pulling a weapon on them. I think you would change your fantastically complacent stance if something closer to yourself happened to you. "I guess for the minute we just keep plodding along hoping the next attack is not too severe ... like we did in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s with the IRA" is a disgraceful comment to make, and shows your naivety, bearing in mind that people on here could have friends or family who have suffered at the hands of the IRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 3 Questions for you LM Is this really different than the IRA? Should the 7/7 bombers have been here? What's this personal experience you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Against my better judgement Im going to actually try and chip in. No doubt most of it will be misunderstood and I'll be labelled a wishy washy leftie whatever. Theres very little we can do against terrorism. There very little anyone has ever been able to do. Its not new, the threat didnt suddenly arise because of some pissed off Muslims. Surely you can see how ridiculous you'e being when you say things were better twenty, thirty years ago when the IRA campaign was at its height!! Different threat, different enemy, different goals. The IRA may have bombed the mainland, but they never had the intention of living in the UK, or attempting to gain a foothold on life in the UK. They just wanted troops out of Ireland and a united Ireland. The threat from the muslim world has the potential to be vastly bigger and more dangerous than the IRA ever threatened. Deporting someone who shouldn't be here, and making sure they don't get back, or deservedly executing them if we can't deport them - until the rest understand what will happen to them if they are caught bombing innocent Britons, 2 year old children or anyone indiscriminately, on British soil, is guaranteed to stop them re-offending. Correct or not ? Different issue from terrorism. Immigration and terrorism arent connected, no matter what the Sun and the Mail might say. As has already been pointed the July 7th bombings were by UK citizens. Your suggestion for deportation wouldnt have solved that would it? It wouldnt have stopped the IRA. All you can do is remain vigilent and depend on intelligence . If a terrorist is good at what he does theres not an awful lot you can do. By the time you know about it its too late. Carlos the Jackal was actually a rubbish terrorist but how long did it take to stop him? Twenty years? The Russians and the Israelis have taken as strong an approach to it as you can but they still havent stopped it. How long have ETA been going? Since the 50's? Spain havent managed to solve that one in 50 years. The thing is with terrorists, unless they make a msitake, you dont really know they are one until its too late. We cant hunt down terrorists and deport them or lock them up because we dont know who they are. If we tighten our immigration it doesnt mean a terrorist couldnt come into the country under the cover of being on holiday or they might be citizens of another EU country. The most powerful nation in the world has been after the most famous terrorist in the world for years and they cant find him! To tackle terrorism your way you'd have to completely close borders, ban travel and place every civilain under surveillance. Place all Arabs and Muslims under suspicion? But some of the july 7th bombers were of Afro/Carribean origin. Suspecting everyone who was Irish in the 70's and 80's didnt stop the IRA and their American members slipped completely through the net. Like it or not terrorists dont stop until they either get what they want or the reason for wanting it is removed. This has bugger all to do with appeasement and everything to do with reality. 145874[/snapback] I totally agree with most of what you say, especially the bold bit. However, not all terrorists are so expert. What is wrong with simply trying to get as many as you can ? Not that many are as expert as you suggest. All I am saying, is to take measures and attempt to do the best we can. I simply can't accept the complacent stance that suggests the current measures we are taking are enough, because they clearly are not. We could do more, and should be doing more. And - the security services should be allowed to do their jobs too without hindrance, and the general public should back them - the simple fact is, if someone is a suspected terrorist, then you can't let them go free, or let them into the country, whatever their "rights" are. And there is NO appeal, nothing. They are held, until it is proven one way or another. And kicked out if there is any doubt at all, not allowed to stay which is what happens at the moment. The last bold bit is correct too. But the point is, the only solution is to stand up to them. At the moment we aren't doing it enough, having soft immigrations laws and the human rights laws we have, is helping them. Edited June 7, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 another outbreak of tolerance I see 146046[/snapback] aahhh...have you just came back from visiting your middle eastern muslim brothers Rob ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Half an hour since I posted my questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4412 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 All terrorists love martyrs - in this scenario add in the religion bollocks and that factor is increased 10 fold. I think if Leazes had his way and a few examples were "executed" there would be a bomb every other day - it would be like living in Jersusalem when thats at its worst. As for the answer I don't know - but I think the "corruption" of more moderate Islamic countries by western values (ie capitalism + freedom) like the Gulf states and Egypt to an extent holds out our best hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) All terrorists love martyrs - in this scenario add in the religion bollocks and that factor is increased 10 fold. true. I think if Leazes had his way and a few examples were "executed" there would be a bomb every other day - it would be like living in Jersusalem when thats at its worst. hopefully not. We are just making it too easy for them though. As for the answer I don't know - but I think the "corruption" of more moderate Islamic countries by western values (ie capitalism + freedom) like the Gulf states and Egypt to an extent holds out our best hope. 146278[/snapback] Possible. But under the current rulers ????? Edited June 7, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) 3 Questions for you LM Is this really different than the IRA? Should the 7/7 bombers have been here? What's this personal experience you speak of? 146258[/snapback] 1. yes. 2. If they were suspected terrorists, they should certainly have been kept a closer watch on, but if it were up to me, they would not have had their freedom at all. I would hazard a guess and say the security services would also have preferred to have them at least locked up, but for various reasons this wasn't possible. 3. I said life experience, not personal experience. You should read the post properly. And - toonpack is right. If we lock them up, we should also force feed them bread and pigfat dripping for their breakfast every morning. Edited June 7, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 How could they be kept a closer watch on when there (as far as I am aware) was absolutely no intelligence on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 How could they be kept a closer watch on when there (as far as I am aware) was absolutely no intelligence on them? 146305[/snapback] Pass. I've not heard that. Find it hard to believe they didn't have any intelligence on them. I suppose thought there are new "recruits" all the time, someone fairly unknown...which underlines the difficulty of it all, and even more, the possibility of getting it wrong now and again .... Like a lot of things though, they don't always tell you everything, because they can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Why do you find it hard to believe they had no intelligence on them, they, as far as anybody was aware, were ordinary British citizens. It's because they were black isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Lastly, if you think the threat has not grown in the last decade, and therefore will not continue without a change in policy, then you are sadly out of touch with reality. As for the security services, they might just do a better job if people would let them get on with their job rather than creating a situation whereby they go into life threatening situations knowing the do gooder brigade will crucify them for the simple act of reacting first if someone appears to be about to pulling a weapon on them. the terrorist threat to the UK hasnt grew in the last decade at all its decreased, massively, thanks to the NI peace agreement and the IRA ceasefire (although this was in 94 so strictly speaking 12 years). Now if you were to say we have a lot more immigrants of muslim faith, middle eastern origin than ten years ago you'd probably be right but this is a different issue from terrorism. Different threat, different enemy, different goals. The IRA may have bombed the mainland, but they never had the intention of living in the UK, or attempting to gain a foothold on life in the UK. They just wanted troops out of Ireland and a united Ireland. The threat from the muslim world has the potential to be vastly bigger and more dangerous than the IRA ever threatened. I think that statement says it all tbh. Muslim terrorist threat is different because they want gain a foothold on life in the UK? Do they? Is that Al Quaedas aim? Hamas's? Dont think so. Its exactly the same threat (kill innocent people and cause terror to achieve a goal) and if anything less of one than the IRA. Mainly due to proximity and support. Do you not think that someone who has went to all the trouble of entering this country illegally with the aim of living here the last thing they want to do is draw attention to themselves by being a terrorist! They could end up dead for one which would be a pretty shitty end to the hope of getting a foothold on life in the UK. Again you're mixing up immigration with terrorism. Two seperate issues. Think about it. How many terrorist acts have been commited by someone entering a country illegally? Dont know the answer? Neither do I but an informed guess would be hardly any, none. The 9/11 bombers didnt enter America illegally. The 7/7 bombers didnt enter the UK illegally. Any other famous terrorist act, I'd be willing they all entered that country legally through immigration control. If we have cells present in the UK or other European countries there'll be organised, funded, trained and on the surface there legally. Afterall the last thing they want is to draw attention to themselves until they're ready to draw attention to themsleves. Whether they're active or not. They wont be desperately attempting to get into the UK by hiding in a truck. I totally agree with most of what you say, especially the bold bit. However, not all terrorists are so expert. What is wrong with simply trying to get as many as you can ? Not that many are as expert as you suggest. All I am saying, is to take measures and attempt to do the best we can. I simply can't accept the complacent stance that suggests the current measures we are taking are enough, because they clearly are not. We could do more, and should be doing more. And - the security services should be allowed to do their jobs too without hindrance, and the general public should back them - the simple fact is, if someone is a suspected terrorist, then you can't let them go free, or let them into the country, whatever their "rights" are. And there is NO appeal, nothing. They are held, until it is proven one way or another. And kicked out if there is any doubt at all, not allowed to stay which is what happens at the moment The last bold bit is correct too. But the point is, the only solution is to stand up to them. At the moment we aren't doing it enough, having soft immigrations laws and the human rights laws we have, is helping them. The security forces are fucked. Like I previously said we've got to depend on intelligence but realistically unless a potential terrorist fucks up there not a lot they can do. Theres nothing they can do to stop someone with no prior walking up to a restaurant and chucking in a grenade. Not all terrorists are so expert, Carlos the Jackal was inept but he managed to take part in terrorist act after terrorist act all the time gaining entry to countries legally with false paperwork. He was the most famous terrorist in the world for over 20 years and it took that long to catch him. If someone is suspected of being a terrorist they will be held and questioned and no doubt placed under surveillance, if allowed into the country at all. Like I said previously, the problem for the most part is we dont know who these people are. They dont wear a uniform, and for want of a better word the more professional wont draw attention to themselves. The less professional such as the 7/7 bombers are complete unknowns. That pretty much is the situation now Leazes they are held until they are proven one way or another. Theres a time limit on it though and rightly so. You cant just keep somoen indefinitely until you find proof of their guilt. If theres no proof there you arent going to find it. The US has the tightest immigration control in the world but it doesnt stop them being flooded by illegals and it didnt stop 9/11. Immigration has nothing to do with the potential terrorist threat this country faces. Edited June 7, 2006 by luckypierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Why do you find it hard to believe they had no intelligence on them, they, as far as anybody was aware, were ordinary British citizens. It's because they were black isn't it? 146319[/snapback] Obviously. I find it hard to believe there wasnt any intelligence after all they were all muslim, most asian and a couple *gulp* black I suppose thought there are new "recruits" all the time, someone fairly unknown...which underlines the difficulty of it all new recruits into what? they werent part of any terrorist organisation, as far as I know they didnt attend any training camps in Afghanistan . Course its difficult. Most are completely unknown, not some! The perpetrator of the second most famous terrorist act in the US was white and American to boot. The FBI had no chance of sussing that one Edited June 7, 2006 by luckypierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now