Police Hunt Chemical Device

[Renton 20987]

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.

146253[/snapback]

 

Leazes, I'm not going to bother answering most of this, because LP has answered all your points thoroughly in the posts above this, which I agree with in their entirety, and which he put better than I could. Tbh I get the impression he knows more about this subject than me, and a certainly more than you. So please answer him, if you can.

 

I'm surprised you think my comment on the IRA was disgraceful, after all I was only stating what happened. I am old enough to have experienced these decades and from what I remember the threat from terrorism was greater then - bombs were going off in Northern Ireland and the mainland on a virtual weekly basis.

 

In your opinion btw, how was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? Through dialogue and negotiation, or were the IRA beaten by millitary force? I'd like a clear answer on that one. Imo that is the only way a terror campaign can ever be ended, name one example where this is not the case?

 

Of course, the present day islamic terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish - different ideology, faith, methods, targets, and perhaps most importantly, they don't have a clear aim. This actually make appeasement as you put it impossible. However, I don't think they pose as big as threat as the government would have us believe, I really don't. I can't be arsed to fully explain to you why I believe this, because I'd just get your usual insults and assumptions about me, but in summary this is because there's only been two significant bombings in the nearly 5 years since 9/11 (London and Madrid).

 

During this time US and european intelligence agencies have had virtually no success in infiltrating any islamic extremist organisations, let alone prosecuting anyone. Why is this? Could be for a number of reasons, but to me it seems likely that well-funded, organised, islamic terror networks just don't exist. This was borne out by the fact that 7/7 was seemingly carried out by a rather amateurish group acting independently. As LP has said (I think) these groups are going to be incredibly hard to track down, almost impossible in fact, but at the same time the range of damage they can cause will be short of apocalyptic (though still horrific, as witnessed on 7/7). How many attacks we suffer I think will be proportional to how many of these groups there are - fortunately so far they seem to be limited in number.

 

When I said plodding on, I meant that for the time being at least the status quo will continue, and we will have no options but to put up with it. How can we expect it to end when there is no physical enemy to negotiate with? But you have come up with no measures at all that will make a difference. I hate to tell you Leazes but there are far more intelligent men than us making decisions on our behalf, and they haven't come up with a solution yet, and i doubt they will. But perhaps you send MI5 an e-mail of your solution - I'm sure they'd be really grateful.

 

Lastly, one matter I'm curious on. Who exactly do you think I am, what education do you think I have and in what subjects, and where do you think I get the information from in order to inform my opinions? I ask this because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me, most of which are patently wrong. Also, I'd be interested why you think your life and experience and perception of reality is more valid than mine, or anyone elses for that matter, a common theme to most your posts (on both general and NUFC boards). Yet you call me patronising.

 

Pompous I would accept btw. Fuck, that turned out to be quite a long post.

[LeazesMag 0]

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]

 

As from now, consider yourself blacklisted by me....

 

So much for an intelligent guy, which at one time, I thought you were

[Renton 20987]

Sima's devestated.

[Guest Sima]

Awww man looks like I hit a nerve

 

Still never answered my first part though

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sima

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

146253[/snapback]

 

Leazes, I'm not going to bother answering most of this, because LP has answered all your points thoroughly in the posts above this, which I agree with in their entirety, and which he put better than I could. Tbh I get the impression he knows more about this subject than me, and a certainly more than you. So please answer him, if you can.

 

I'm surprised you think my comment on the IRA was disgraceful, after all I was only stating what happened. I am old enough to have experienced these decades and from what I remember the threat from terrorism was greater then - bombs were going off in Northern Ireland and the mainland on a virtual weekly basis.

 

In your opinion btw, how was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? Through dialogue and negotiation, or were the IRA beaten by millitary force? I'd like a clear answer on that one. Imo that is the only way a terror campaign can ever be ended, name one example where this is not the case?

 

Of course, the present day islamic terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish - different ideology, faith, methods, targets, and perhaps most importantly, they don't have a clear aim. This actually make appeasement as you put it impossible. However, I don't think they pose as big as threat as the government would have us believe, I really don't. I can't be arsed to fully explain to you why I believe this, because I'd just get your usual insults and assumptions about me, but in summary this is because there's only been two significant bombings in the nearly 5 years since 9/11 (London and Madrid).

 

During this time US and european intelligence agencies have had virtually no success in infiltrating any islamic extremist organisations, let alone prosecuting anyone. Why is this? Could be for a number of reasons, but to me it seems likely that well-funded, organised, islamic terror networks just don't exist. This was borne out by the fact that 7/7 was seemingly carried out by a rather amateurish group acting independently. As LP has said (I think) these groups are going to be incredibly hard to track down, almost impossible in fact, but at the same time the range of damage they can cause will be short of apocalyptic (though still horrific, as witnessed on 7/7). How many attacks we suffer I think will be proportional to how many of these groups there are - fortunately so far they seem to be limited in number.

 

When I said plodding on, I meant that for the time being at least the status quo will continue, and we will have no options but to put up with it. How can we expect it to end when there is no physical enemy to negotiate with? But you have come up with no measures at all that will make a difference. I hate to tell you Leazes but there are far more intelligent men than us making decisions on our behalf, and they haven't come up with a solution yet, and i doubt they will. But perhaps you send MI5 an e-mail of your solution - I'm sure they'd be really grateful.

 

Lastly, one matter I'm curious on. Who exactly do you think I am, what education do you think I have and in what subjects, and where do you think I get the information from in order to inform my opinions? I ask this because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me, most of which are patently wrong. Also, I'd be interested why you think your life and experience and perception of reality is more valid than mine, or anyone elses for that matter, a common theme to most your posts (on both general and NUFC boards). Yet you call me patronising.

 

Pompous I would accept btw. Fuck, that turned out to be quite a long post.

146358[/snapback]

 

1. LP certainly appears to know more than you, he certainly puts his case across without resorting to childish insults like you do. Whether he knows more than me - I doubt it - but again he might, that is a matter of opinion, just because you disagree doesn't mean I am less informed. As you know nothing about me, you should not make such assumptions, is a statement I believe you have insinuated, if not directly said, elsewhere. Rather hypocritical, don't you think ?

 

2. Yes I think your comment on the IRA was disgraceful. You were stating that we should simply sit back and wait for the next bomb to explode in the UK "as we did with the IRA". You would sing a completely different tune if someone YOU knew had been killed, injured, or hurt in a previous act of terrorism by the IRA. Completely lacking in sensitivity, not that I'm surprised. Basically, even ONE more bomb is NOT acceptable.

 

3. The problem of NI is basically "solved" because we gave in to them. The murderers Adams and McGuiness are now seen as "statesmen". Which is nothing other than a joke. The people are obviously happy with the peace that now exists after decades of violence and who can blame them. What is the future ? What If Ireland becomes a united country, which is STILL the aim of the IRA ? Their violence got us round the negotiating table, you never bargain with terrorists. Will the muslim bombers get us round the negotiating table ? What do you think they will want ?

 

4. You may be right in the comment that well funded islamic organisations do not exist - now. Although past results suggest they are orgnanised and funded enough. But don't you think we should be concerned that they just might become bigger, better funded, and more organised ? They are not going to go away.

I am not interested in talking about such things as "proportion of attacks", because IMO even one attack is one too many.

 

5. Odd that you say you are sick and tired of me making assumptions about you, because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me. Odd also that you are sick of me assuming you know about my education and backround, and where you get the information to base your opinions, because I am also sick of you assuming you know about my education, backround, most of which are wrong, and where I get the information from to base my opinions. Strange eh. Pompous is indeed a good word to describe yourself.

 

I'll catch up with LP tomorrow. His post is the most thoughtful of the two of you, and I have more time then.

[LeazesMag 0]

Sima's devestated. 

146362[/snapback]

 

Thought you were about to stop making childish posts for a moment .......

[LeazesMag 0]

Awww man looks like I hit a nerve

 

Still never answered my first part though

146363[/snapback]

 

aaahh diddums eh

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

146321[/snapback]

 

I am talking about the threat from middle east/muslim extremists. Of course it has increased. I thought you would have realised I had ruled the IRA out of this particular argment now LP, after my last comments. But do you think the threat of the IRA has gone forever ?

 

The growth in immigration is relevant to the growth in middle eastern terrorism and the potential for more terrorism. Those who are now in this country, and those who have yet to arrive too, that have no affinity with the UK nor have any attention of having any, will not particularly feel sympathy with us if or when more bombs go off, their sympathies will lie with the bombers and their cause. This is happening now. We are doing nothing to prevent it increasing.

 

In respect of the fact that planting a bomb in a shopping centre is the same tactic the IRA used, then yes that is exactly the same, but I don't agree about the bigger motive. Those people I mention in the previous paragraph who have no affinity with the UK - they live here, so they DO want to get a foothold in life here, the longer bombing goes on, the more likely they are to sympathise, you simply can't say it won't happen, it is inevitable as we allow numbers to increase. And it allows people with terrorist intentions to slip into the country, yes ?

 

If as you say, the security services are fucked, then yes that is a major concern. They can only do their best. If its not good enough, it needs more funding, more personnel and new laws to help it tackle the problem. Agreed ? If someone is suspected of being a terrorist, you say they should be kept under surveillance, which costs money, I think they shouldn't be allowed into the country under any circumstances whatever. At the moment if it can't be proved they are a terrorist, they are free, I think the perspective has to be the other way around, if it can't be proven they aren't a terrorist, then they are out. If the law needs to be changed, then change it. The security of the country comes before the "rights" on any one individual.

 

I do agree that unfortunately there is always one bomber, or smalll group of, that may slip through but that is no reason to "wait for it to happen" as Renton suggests, we have to limit it as much as possible.

[Guest Sima]

Awww man looks like I hit a nerve

 

Still never answered my first part though

146363[/snapback]

 

aaahh diddums eh

146372[/snapback]

 

Translation - I haven't got an answer. Thanks for clearing that up

[luckypierre 0]

I am talking about the threat from middle east/muslim extremists. Of course it has increased. I thought you would have realised I had ruled the IRA out of this particular argment now LP, after my last comments. But do you think the threat of the IRA has gone forever ?

How convenient, well I didnt. Whether this country faces terrorist attacks, from muslim, irish, basque, gay, whatever terrorist groups it doesnt matter, the 'threat' is the same. Who knows if the IRA is gone forever. Doesnt really matter, we've faced terrorism in some form for decades, if not forever. Im sure we always will

 

The growth in immigration is relevant to the growth in middle eastern terrorism and the potential for more terrorism. Those who are now in this country, and those who have yet to arrive too, that have no affinity with the UK nor have any attention of having any, will not particularly feel sympathy with us if or when more bombs go off, their sympathies will lie with the bombers and their cause. This is happening now. We are doing nothing to prevent it increasing.

 

Why? Because the Mail and the Sun say so? As has been pointed out of theres no evidence to say that any terrorists enter this country illegally. The facts actually point to a completely different conclusion. Continue to ignore it if you like. As a proportion of immigrants how many of middle eastern descent are there? How do you measure 'affinity with the UK'? Again its tabloid spin on a serious issue which doesnt actually reflect the facts. How is it happening now? What is happening is a growing group of UK citizens that feel completely disenfranchised and angry. Why is that? What can we do to tackle that? Its got bugger all to do with immigration.

 

In respect of the fact that planting a bomb in a shopping centre is the same tactic the IRA used, then yes that is exactly the same, but I don't agree about the bigger motive. Those people I mention in the previous paragraph who have no affinity with the UK - they live here, so they DO want to get a foothold in life here, the longer bombing goes on, the more likely they are to sympathise, you simply can't say it won't happen, it is inevitable as we allow numbers to increase. And it allows people with terrorist intentions to slip into the country, yes ?

 

So the terrorists already live here but they have no affinity to the UK but still want to live here, and the best way to do that is to become terrorists? Jesus! How many times do I have to point out how much crap this is. People with terrorist intentions arent slipping into the country illegally! How many times? Theres no evidence to suggest this other than tabloid rambling. It doesnt matter what the motive is the 'threat' is the same. The way the security forces have to tackle it is the same. How many immigrants sympathised with 7/7 bombers and how many condemned them? Ridiculous question with no answer isnt it.

 

If as you say, the security services are fucked, then yes that is a major concern. They can only do their best. If its not good enough, it needs more funding, more personnel and new laws to help it tackle the problem. Agreed ? If someone is suspected of being a terrorist, you say they should be kept under surveillance, which costs money, I think they shouldn't be allowed into the country under any circumstances whatever. At the moment if it can't be proved they are a terrorist, they are free, I think the perspective has to be the other way around, if it can't be proven they aren't a terrorist, then they are out. If the law needs to be changed, then change it. The security of the country comes before the "rights" on any one individual.

 

I do agree that unfortunately there is always one bomber, or smalll group of, that may slip through but that is no reason to "wait for it to happen" as Renton suggests, we have to limit it as much as possible.

 

You cant detain someone on the premise that the have to prove their innocence. Prove to me you arent a terrorist Leazes. Theres been a lot on TV about the magna carta recently and how the one of the greatest gifts this country gave the world was the rule of law. Yet you want to change that. Maybe its you that doesnt have affintiy with the UK. Its got nothing to do witht he rights of an individual but the rights of all. The law doesnt need to be changed because we arent under any more significant danger of terrorist attack than we were 10 , 20, 30 years ago. It doesnt matter how much funding or what laws you change because bar keeping every single person in this country under survaillence there is nothing you can do. The terrorists have a different faith, different colur skin, different motives but their methods and purpose remain exactly the same. Again if you want to compare it to the past then the threat of a terrorist attack is much less than it was in the 70's and 80's.

 

Its not a case of one group slipping through the net. How many terrorist attacks have been thwarted compared to how many have been successful? Its the exception rather than the rule that terrorists are stopped purely because of the nature of terrorism. You cant fight an enemy you dont know. I dont think Rentons wording was the best but he's exactly right. When he says 'we' he means the genreal public not the security forces. We didnt and shouldnt nescessarilly wait for it to happen (conciously anyway) but we get on with our lives and dont let it affect us. Thats exactly the attitude that was championed as being 'typically British' after 7/7.

Edited June 8, 2006 by luckypierre

[LeazesMag 0]

I am talking about the threat from middle east/muslim extremists. Of course it has increased. I thought you would have realised I had ruled the IRA out of this particular argment now LP, after my last comments. But do you think the threat of the IRA has gone forever ?

How convenient, well I didnt. Whether this country faces terrorist attacks, from muslim, irish, basque, gay, whatever terrorist groups it doesnt matter, the 'threat' is the same. Who knows if the IRA is gone forever. Doesnt really matter, we've faced terrorism in some form for decades, if not forever. Im sure we always will

 

The growth in immigration is relevant to the growth in middle eastern terrorism and the potential for more terrorism. Those who are now in this country, and those who have yet to arrive too, that have no affinity with the UK nor have any attention of having any, will not particularly feel sympathy with us if or when more bombs go off, their sympathies will lie with the bombers and their cause. This is happening now. We are doing nothing to prevent it increasing.

 

Why? Because the Mail and the Sun say so? As has been pointed out of theres no evidence to say that any terrorists enter this country illegally. The facts actually point to a completely different conclusion. Continue to ignore it if you like. As a proportion of immigrants how many of middle eastern descent are there? How do you measure 'affinity with the UK'? Again its tabloid spin on a serious issue which doesnt actually reflect the facts. How is it happening now? What is happening is a growing group of UK citizens that feel completely disenfranchised and angry. Why is that? What can we do to tackle that? Its got bugger all to do with immigration.

 

In respect of the fact that planting a bomb in a shopping centre is the same tactic the IRA used, then yes that is exactly the same, but I don't agree about the bigger motive. Those people I mention in the previous paragraph who have no affinity with the UK - they live here, so they DO want to get a foothold in life here, the longer bombing goes on, the more likely they are to sympathise, you simply can't say it won't happen, it is inevitable as we allow numbers to increase. And it allows people with terrorist intentions to slip into the country, yes ?

 

So the terrorists already live here but they have no affinity to the UK but still want to live here, and the best way to do that is to become terrorists? * Jesus! How many times do I have to point out how much crap this is. People with terrorist intentions arent slipping into the country illegally! How many times? Theres no evidence to suggest this other than tabloid rambling. It doesnt matter what the motive is the 'threat' is the same. The way the security forces have to tackle it is the same. How many immigrants sympathised with 7/7 bombers and how many condemned them? Ridiculous question with no answer isnt it.

 

If as you say, the security services are fucked, then yes that is a major concern. They can only do their best. If its not good enough, it needs more funding, more personnel and new laws to help it tackle the problem. Agreed ? If someone is suspected of being a terrorist, you say they should be kept under surveillance, which costs money, I think they shouldn't be allowed into the country under any circumstances whatever. At the moment if it can't be proved they are a terrorist, they are free, I think the perspective has to be the other way around, if it can't be proven they aren't a terrorist, then they are out. If the law needs to be changed, then change it. The security of the country comes before the "rights" on any one individual.

 

I do agree that unfortunately there is always one bomber, or smalll group of, that may slip through but that is no reason to "wait for it to happen" as Renton suggests, we have to limit it as much as possible.

 

You cant detain someone on the premise that the have to prove their innocence. Prove to me you arent a terrorist Leazes. Theres been a lot on TV about the magna carta recently and how the one of the greatest gifts this country gave the world was the rule of law. Yet you want to change that. Maybe its you that doesnt have affintiy with the UK. Its got nothing to do witht he rights of an individual but the rights of all. The law doesnt need to be changed because we arent under any more significant danger of terrorist attack than we were 10 , 20, 30 years ago. It doesnt matter how much funding or what laws you change because bar keeping every single person in this country under survaillence there is nothing you can do. The terrorists have a different faith, different colur skin, different motives but their methods and purpose remain exactly the same. Again if you want to compare it to the past then the threat of a terrorist attack is much less than it was in the 70's and 80's.

 

Its not a case of one group slipping through the net. How many terrorist attacks have been thwarted compared to how many have been successful? Its the exception rather than the rule that terrorists are stopped purely because of the nature of terrorism. You cant fight an enemy you dont know. I dont think Rentons wording was the best but he's exactly right. When he says 'we' he means the genreal public not the security forces. We didnt and shouldnt nescessarilly wait for it to happen (conciously anyway) but we get on with our lives and dont let it affect us. Thats exactly the attitude that was championed as being 'typically British' after 7/7.

146383[/snapback]

 

Just when I thought someone was debating this issue properly .... we were talking about middle eastern/muslim extremist terrorism, and how to deal with it, not gay, basque etc.

 

Sarcasm. It lets you down. Who reads the Mail or the Sun ? Not me. Nor the Guardian either. I just have my opinions, they are totally irrelevant to whatever any newspaper may try to tell me.

 

I don't think demonstrations carrying banners "death to the infidels" etc etc is tabloid spin. It's pretty obvious what they mean. I've said before, if they don't like our freedom of speech, they can fuck off.

 

* I have no idea what you are saying here, its not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that people without an affinity to the UK, will be influenced by bombers, when they share their views. It may not be obvious to some of you younger lads - and I have no idea how old you are, I'm just making an observation - but to slightly older people like myself, we can draw a comparison with 10-20 years ago, and tell you it is increasing.

 

People do not get onto the suspected terrorist list unless they are a suspected terrorist ! You simply cannot let them free to roam the country. You have to back the security services in this. We must change the law in their favour, not against them. You cannot oppose them, or doubt them, if you do, you are making it 10 times more difficult for them. When you say we will not get rid of this problem, you are absolutely correct we will not solve this problem if we allow suspected terrorists to go free in the UK. Civil Liberty is simply not an issue. Security comes first.

[Gemmill 44012]

STOP ARGUING WITH HIM!

 

 

Seriously though, he can go on forever. We've seen it before with the Shepherd thing. There can be no winner, no bringing him round to your way of thinking, no softening of his viewpoint. Just the same, repeated, irrelevant responses over and over and over again. If you allow it you'll still be doing this 100 pages from now. Please somebody, make it stop!

[sweetleftpeg 0]

He makes a good curry though.

[Meenzer 15322]

He makes a good curry though.

146392[/snapback]

"Freedom Phall" tbh.

[Renton 20987]

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.

146253[/snapback]

 

Leazes, I'm not going to bother answering most of this, because LP has answered all your points thoroughly in the posts above this, which I agree with in their entirety, and which he put better than I could. Tbh I get the impression he knows more about this subject than me, and a certainly more than you. So please answer him, if you can.

 

I'm surprised you think my comment on the IRA was disgraceful, after all I was only stating what happened. I am old enough to have experienced these decades and from what I remember the threat from terrorism was greater then - bombs were going off in Northern Ireland and the mainland on a virtual weekly basis.

 

In your opinion btw, how was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? Through dialogue and negotiation, or were the IRA beaten by millitary force? I'd like a clear answer on that one. Imo that is the only way a terror campaign can ever be ended, name one example where this is not the case?

 

Of course, the present day islamic terrorists are a completely different kettle of fish - different ideology, faith, methods, targets, and perhaps most importantly, they don't have a clear aim. This actually make appeasement as you put it impossible. However, I don't think they pose as big as threat as the government would have us believe, I really don't. I can't be arsed to fully explain to you why I believe this, because I'd just get your usual insults and assumptions about me, but in summary this is because there's only been two significant bombings in the nearly 5 years since 9/11 (London and Madrid).

 

During this time US and european intelligence agencies have had virtually no success in infiltrating any islamic extremist organisations, let alone prosecuting anyone. Why is this? Could be for a number of reasons, but to me it seems likely that well-funded, organised, islamic terror networks just don't exist. This was borne out by the fact that 7/7 was seemingly carried out by a rather amateurish group acting independently. As LP has said (I think) these groups are going to be incredibly hard to track down, almost impossible in fact, but at the same time the range of damage they can cause will be short of apocalyptic (though still horrific, as witnessed on 7/7). How many attacks we suffer I think will be proportional to how many of these groups there are - fortunately so far they seem to be limited in number.

 

When I said plodding on, I meant that for the time being at least the status quo will continue, and we will have no options but to put up with it. How can we expect it to end when there is no physical enemy to negotiate with? But you have come up with no measures at all that will make a difference. I hate to tell you Leazes but there are far more intelligent men than us making decisions on our behalf, and they haven't come up with a solution yet, and i doubt they will. But perhaps you send MI5 an e-mail of your solution - I'm sure they'd be really grateful.

 

Lastly, one matter I'm curious on. Who exactly do you think I am, what education do you think I have and in what subjects, and where do you think I get the information from in order to inform my opinions? I ask this because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me, most of which are patently wrong. Also, I'd be interested why you think your life and experience and perception of reality is more valid than mine, or anyone elses for that matter, a common theme to most your posts (on both general and NUFC boards). Yet you call me patronising.

 

Pompous I would accept btw. Fuck, that turned out to be quite a long post.

146358[/snapback]

 

1. LP certainly appears to know more than you, he certainly puts his case across without resorting to childish insults like you do. Whether he knows more than me - I doubt it - but again he might, that is a matter of opinion, just because you disagree doesn't mean I am less informed. As you know nothing about me, you should not make such assumptions, is a statement I believe you have insinuated, if not directly said, elsewhere. Rather hypocritical, don't you think ?

 

2. Yes I think your comment on the IRA was disgraceful. You were stating that we should simply sit back and wait for the next bomb to explode in the UK "as we did with the IRA". You would sing a completely different tune if someone YOU knew had been killed, injured, or hurt in a previous act of terrorism by the IRA. Completely lacking in sensitivity, not that I'm surprised. Basically, even ONE more bomb is NOT acceptable.

 

3. The problem of NI is basically "solved" because we gave in to them. The murderers Adams and McGuiness are now seen as "statesmen". Which is nothing other than a joke. The people are obviously happy with the peace that now exists after decades of violence and who can blame them. What is the future ? What If Ireland becomes a united country, which is STILL the aim of the IRA ? Their violence got us round the negotiating table, you never bargain with terrorists. Will the muslim bombers get us round the negotiating table ? What do you think they will want ?

 

4. You may be right in the comment that well funded islamic organisations do not exist - now. Although past results suggest they are orgnanised and funded enough. But don't you think we should be concerned that they just might become bigger, better funded, and more organised ? They are not going to go away.

I am not interested in talking about such things as "proportion of attacks", because IMO even one attack is one too many.

 

5. Odd that you say you are sick and tired of me making assumptions about you, because I am sick and tired of you making assumptions about me. Odd also that you are sick of me assuming you know about my education and backround, and where you get the information to base your opinions, because I am also sick of you assuming you know about my education, backround, most of which are wrong, and where I get the information from to base my opinions. Strange eh. Pompous is indeed a good word to describe yourself.

 

I'll catch up with LP tomorrow. His post is the most thoughtful of the two of you, and I have more time then.

146370[/snapback]

 

Well since we're agreed LP knows more about this than me, I'm prepared to hand over the batton to him now - cheers LP.

 

Just a couple of things. Firstly you suggest I need to know you personally to know you are ignorant of the facts involved in this discussion. That's balatent bullshit isn't it? You make your ignorance apparent on virtually every post you make, for instance citing the genocide of the kurds as a good reason to invade Iraq, but not even knowing who was involved in this atrocity.

 

Still think I said absolutely nothing offensive regards the IRA, but then you have a very strange way of reading, or inability to read, as you have shown hilariously in several of your posts on this very thread. Cheers for the entertainment btw.

 

Finally you say I make assumptions about you. Well yes, I think pretty much every person on here has made particular assumptions about you. But I have kept them to myself, unlike you, who have repeatedly stated things that are incorrect about me, such as what newspaper I read, that I derive my opinions from fancy dan lecturers, and that I think I have all the answers, when I readily admit I have none of them.

 

One assumption I have made of you is that you vote BNP or indeed may be an activist for this party. I think this deserves a straight answer Leazes. Please give it.

[luckyluke 2]

I love how Renton said he wasn't arguing anymore on page 5 or something.

[luckypierre 0]

Just when I thought someone was debating this issue properly .... we were talking about middle eastern/muslim extremist terrorism, and how to deal with it, not gay, basque etc.

 

Sarcasm. It lets you down. Who reads the Mail or the Sun ? Not me. Nor the Guardian either. I just have my opinions, they are totally irrelevant to whatever any newspaper may try to tell me.

 

and unsurprisingly you miss the point. You said we were under an increased terrorist threat (originally no distinction). We're not. The point is it doesnt matter what the terrorist is, they are tackled in exactly the same way.

 

 

Sarcasm eh? Do you want reminding of your very first post?

 

The obvious solution to stop the escalation of this sort of thing in the UK, is to continue leaving our borders open, allowing people to flout our immigration laws,

give them a good life allowing them to live the way they choose with no respect for our own traditions and cultures, and to hold an urgent debate with the captives to try and find out where these weapons are. A nice cup of tea, and a friendly chat, with the promise of allowing their relations into the country to come and live with them, should do the trick.

 

Get off the high horse man!

 

 

Its the likes of the Sun and the Mail who continue to perpetuate the myth of the link between immigration and terrorism which you subscribe to. Its a myth. The evidence and facts point to something completley different. i personally think its incredibly dangerous to get the issue mixed up. It isnt going to help, solve or tackle either. It will only make them worse.

 

* I have no idea what you are saying here, its not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that people without an affinity to the UK, will be influenced by bombers, when they share their views. It may not be obvious to some of you younger lads - and I have no idea how old you are, I'm just making an observation - but to slightly older people like myself, we can draw a comparison with 10-20 years ago, and tell you it is increasing.

 

 

well it comes from this

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.

 

The IRA to you was different because they didnt want to live here. Plenty of IRA members were here under the cover of living and working in the UK. Do Islamic terrorists want to live here? How is being a terrorist productive to living somewhere .. Ahhh but those immigrants might one day turn into terrorists and because of that we should stop them coming in right? Again back to previous questions what proportion of immigrants are from the middle east? How many muslim? Should we judge a whole group of people based on the possible but unlikely potential threat of one tiny group? Why dont we do that for all then? Why dont we legislate against white men. Lets have a curfew , it'll help stop crime. Lets ban alcohol it'll stop thousands of deaths a year, more than any terrorist threat, from alcohol related disease and crime. Who cares about civil liberties when it save lives right?

 

Wouldnt your suggestion have worked just as well with the IRA? Dont let anyone Irish into the UK? You havent suggested that and have tried to distance the IRA from the current situation? why? Like Ive pointed out the IRA were a more serious threat because of their proximity both physically and their support network.

 

whats increasing? Immigration? yes but yet again this isnt linked to terrorism and has nothing to do with how we best tackle it. The threat historically and factually is from present UK citizens and organised, funded terrorist organistions that have the resources to enter a country legitimately. Theres so many ifs and buts about that statement its ridiculous. Why are immigrants more likely to be influenced?. The vast majority want nothing more thant to have some affinity to the UK , they've come here for a better life. Where the evidence to back your statement up? Or the life experience? Ever lived outside of Newcastle? Ever lived in a muslim community?. Probably the best way to put them on the road you describe is to single them out and treat them like criminals, give them something to hate this country for. Oh and before you jump in this doesnt mean we should give them free houses and have all their relatives over either. Did the british lads responsible for 7/7 not have an affinity for the UK then? if not, why? How do you decide who has an affintiy for the UK or not? What are your criteria?

 

People do not get onto the suspected terrorist list unless they are a suspected terrorist !  You simply cannot let them free to roam the country. You have to back the security services in this. We must change the law in their favour, not against them. You cannot oppose them, or doubt them, if you do, you are making it 10 times more difficult for them. When you say we will not get rid of this problem, you are absolutely correct we will not solve this problem if we allow suspected terrorists to go free in the UK. Civil Liberty is simply not an issue. Security comes first.

 

the police and the intelligence services dont get things wrong then? Course they do!

 

Do you think that people suspected of terrorism arent under survaillence? Theres no laws that need changing for this to happen. Its the same problem as it was with the IRA and it comes down to intelligence. No changing of laws will change this. It wont make it easier to find who terrorist x is because we just dont know who and where they are. The problem is they arent on the list! Or if they are and they are more organised have the resources to avoid detection.

 

I did say this was against my better judgement

 

can a mod take away my ability to post, I know I'll keep doing it and I really dont want to

Edited June 8, 2006 by luckypierre

[Renton 20987]

can a mod take away my ability to post, I know I'll keep doing it and I really dont want to

146397[/snapback]

 

 

Good luck.

[Gemmill 44012]

He's posting as I type. Can we have some sort of pact that no one will respond?

[luckypierre 0]

I'd like to say yes

[Guest alex]

Anyone know any decent curry recipes?

[Meenzer 15322]

*considers mentioning Freedom Phall again*

 

*thinks better of it*

[LeazesMag 0]

The IRA to you was different because they didnt want to live here. Plenty of IRA members were here under the cover of living and working in the UK. Do Islamic terrorists want to live here? How is being a terrorist productive to living somewhere .. Ahhh but those immigrants might one day turn into terrorists and because of that we should stop them coming in right?  Again back to previous questions what proportion of immigrants are from the middle east? How many muslim? Should we judge a whole group of people based on the possible but unlikely potential threat of one tiny group? Why dont we do that for all then? Why dont we legislate against white men. Lets have a curfew , it'll help stop crime. Lets ban alcohol it'll stop thousands of deaths a year, more than any terrorist threat, from alcohol related disease and crime. Who cares about civil liberties when it save lives right?

 

Deliberate misuse of words. If you have done nothing you have the freedom to choose if you want to stay out at night, or drink alcohol.

 

You do not have a choice in whether or not you are safe from terrorists.

 

So the only way to cure that is to curtail their freedom. If someone is a suspected terrorist, they must be kept a closer tab on if they are already here - and any excuse taken to haul them in too - and if one is attempting to get into the country

they must not be allowed to until it is proved otherwise. If the services need more funding, more manpower and new laws, get them. There cannot be any concessions made here if we are to tackle this. I can't see how anyone can dispute it. If you are seriously prepared to say these people have "rights" to walk around this country the only thing I can say to you is to stand by and prepare for more bombs. Just don't go complaining about them when they happen near you or anywhere else, or expressing condemnation, or even worse blaming the security services when you are preventing measures to help them.

 

Wouldnt your suggestion have worked just as well with the IRA? Dont let anyone Irish into the UK? You havent suggested that and have tried to distance the IRA from the current situation? why? Like Ive pointed out the IRA were a more serious threat because of their proximity both physically and their support network.

 

I don't think so. At the end of the day, the IRA bombed us because they wanted us out of NI, do you think if we pull out of the middle east the global bombing and terrorism would stop ? Along with the immigration problem ?

 

whats increasing? Immigration? yes but yet again this isnt linked to terrorism and has nothing to do with how we best tackle it. The threat historically and factually is from present UK citizens and organised, funded terrorist organistions that have the resources to enter a country legitimately. Theres so many ifs and buts about that statement its ridiculous. Why are immigrants more likely to be influenced?. The vast majority want nothing more thant to have some affinity to the UK , they've come here for a better life. Where the evidence to back your statement up? Or the life experience? Ever lived outside of Newcastle? Ever lived in a muslim community?. Probably the best way to put them on the road you describe is to single them out and treat them like criminals, give them something to hate this country for. Oh and before you jump in this doesnt mean we should give them free houses and have all their relatives over either. Did the british lads responsible for 7/7 not have an affinity for the UK then? if not, why? How do you decide who has an affintiy for the UK or not? What are your criteria?

 

You make too many assumptions about me. They are all wrong. At least you admit that immigration is increasing. Increasing the potential for more "disaffected UK citizens". Correct ?

 

I get the impression you are happy to let it continue. We do not have the duty or the facilities to care for the rest of the world. We should not be regarded as a gravy train, which we are, which is of course why they single out Britain. How much more strain do you think can be put on the the country and our social services ? Which is all going to increase the potential for "more disaffected UK citizens". Correct ?

 

the police and the intelligence services dont get things wrong then? Course they do!

 

Do you think that people suspected of terrorism arent under survaillence? Theres no laws that need changing for this to happen. Its the same problem as it was with the IRA and it comes down to intelligence. No changing of laws will change this. It wont make it easier to find who terrorist x is because we just dont know who and where they are. The problem is they arent on the list! Or if they are and they are more organised have the resources to avoid detection.

 

I didn't say they don't get things wrong. All we can do is minimise it as best as possible. Of course I know terrorist suspects are under surveillance. Not enough though. And the law isn't tight enough to deal with them properly. Which is what I said at the beginning. Surveillance in NI is different to surveillance of a middle eastern terror network. These are established over a number of years. Establishing networks in NI is obviously easier than in the middle east. And the potential of this middle eastern terrorism vastly exceeds that of the IRA, making it more important for it to be tackled more stringently. The IRA bombed us because they wanted us out of NI, yes ? Remind us again why middle eastern terrorists are bombing us ?

[Gemmill 44012]

Shhhhhhhhh.

[Guest alex]

I'd love to know why you think they're bombing us Leazes? Or planning to. I don't support what they do one iota by the way. What do you think their grievances are though?