ISIS clarification

[Jamesey1981]

I don't belieeeeve it!

Just not cricket old chap?

 

Didn't someone say " yesterdays freedom fighter , tomorrows statesman?"

In this case it was the other way round, former MP became a suicide bomber!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36902702?client=safari

[Scully]

 

 

I'm not part of the tin foil hat brigade but I'm sure certain people that pose the biggest threats are rubbed out and disappear without us knowing who they ever were.

 

 

 

Really? Even if it were true, which I doubt, is that what we really want? Who decides 'we' are in the right; who decides who poses the relevant level of threat, and where do we draw the line?

[iano]

 

Really? Even if it were true, which I doubt, is that what we really want? Who decides 'we' are in the right; who decides who poses the relevant level of threat, and where do we draw the line?

 

Jeremey Scahill, an American Journalist has written a couple of books on the US doing this. Really interesting reads, Brits get a mention or two.

 

I think one of the books was made into a movie and is in UK/IRL Netflix - Dirty Wars was the name of it IIRC

[Rewulf]

 

 

For my part I think the latest atrocities in France and Germany will have the effect of speeding up deportation of those strongly suspected of being involved in terrorism or strict internment if deportation isn't a viable option. Guantanamo Bay style holding areas will become more common in my opinion. The public have more right to be protected than a suspected terrorist has to operate freely.

 

Or not , as the case may be.

 

http://www.nottinghampost.com/guantanamo-bay-prisoner-with-suspected-al-qaeda-links-could-move-to-nottingham/story-29556295-detail/story.html

[Scully]

 

Jeremey Scahill, an American Journalist has written a couple of books on the US doing this. Really interesting reads, Brits get a mention or two.

 

I think one of the books was made into a movie and is in UK/IRL Netflix - Dirty Wars was the name of it IIRC

 

In that case it's hardly 'covert'.

[winnie&bezza]

Taking out threats or hate preachers quietly is something I am totally for. If it happens is another thing or they watch them for intelligence.

[Glenlivet]

Since 1945 or so, 'war' can only be declared by the United Nations (well for the 95% of countries that recognise it).

 

Lacking a UN declaration, it isn't war.

The UN and EU see them as a Terrorist group I think, as opposed to an 'army'.

 

 

To be more precise - she can declare war all she wants, it just won't be a 'legal' war unless approved by the UN.

 

Not exactly:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the Council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The Council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

 

The resolution, tabled by the British representative Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).

 

Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.[2][3]

From Wikipedia

[CharlieT]

I don't belieeeeve it!

Just not cricket old chap?

 

Didn't someone say " yesterdays freedom fighter , tomorrows statesman?"

 

They did indeed.

 

As an example, the list of those who were once considered terrorists and went on to be revered include Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, George Washington, Menachen Begin and Ariel Sharon, to name just a few.

 

Would the world be a better place today if they had been murdered in their terrorist days by some unaccountable, above the law death squad.

[paul65]

 

Really? Even if it were true, which I doubt, is that what we really want? Who decides 'we' are in the right; who decides who poses the relevant level of threat, and where do we draw the line?

I want it, a lot of people that I know want it. These people that the security services know about should leave their homes one day to go to the shops, then bag over the head and bundled into a van and off on a one way trip to a Guantanamo type facility. Followed by zero publicity and a total denial response to any questions.

 

I don't really care who decides. The level of threat should be encouraging or planning Islamic terrorism. I specify that because it can never be stopped by negotiation, it's about a hatred of us and our way of life.

[CharlieT]

I want it, a lot of people that I know want it. These people that the security services know about should leave their homes one day to go to the shops, then bag over the head and bundled into a van and off on a one way trip to a Guantanamo type facility. Followed by zero publicity and a total denial response to any questions.

 

I don't really care who decides. The level of threat should be encouraging or planning Islamic terrorism. I specify that because it can never be stopped by negotiation, it's about a hatred of us and our way of life.

 

Much like the terrorist way of doing things we all decry.

 

Did you actually engage your brain before typing this or do you truly believe that state sponsored murder, without trial, is acceptable.

[paul65]

 

Much like the terrorist way of doing things we all decry.

 

Did you actually engage your brain before typing this or do you truly believe that state sponsored murder, without trial, is acceptable.

 

Yes I do believe it's acceptable. And I really don't much care about your opinion.

[Scully]

I want it, a lot of people that I know want it. These people that the security services know about should leave their homes one day to go to the shops, then bag over the head and bundled into a van and off on a one way trip to a Guantanamo type facility. Followed by zero publicity and a total denial response to any questions.

 

I don't really care who decides. The level of threat should be encouraging or planning Islamic terrorism. I specify that because it can never be stopped by negotiation, it's about a hatred of us and our way of life.

 

It does sound like the sort of thing I would have agreed with when I was about fifteen and my head was filled with patriotism and the realms of film fantasy, but looked at in the light of harsh reality as a mature adult I believe it has the potential to create more problems than it solves. We may be bound by the laws which we all regard as poor, to say the least, but what is the alternative? I quite like the idea of child murderers and gangsters 'disappearing' forever, but

if you don't care who decides, how about Nicola Sturgeon making the decision, or Theresa May, Tony Blair or Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage? Donald Trump? And where do we draw the line? Burglars? Muggers? Drink drivers or ( a particular pet hatred of mine ) those who talk on their phones while driving? Gypsies littering the streets? Bundled into the back of a van and never heard or seen from again. Of course there wont be any instances of mistaken identity as those responsible would never get it wrong, would they?

 

Yes I do believe it's acceptable. And I really don't much care about your opinion.

Isn't that terrorism?

[Gordon R]

paul65 - you will find yourself in a very small minority.

[Rewulf]

I want it, a lot of people that I know want it. These people that the security services know about should leave their homes one day to go to the shops, then bag over the head and bundled into a van and off on a one way trip to a Guantanamo type facility. Followed by zero publicity and a total denial response to any questions.

 

 

Have you really thought this through ?

 

If they can do it to a suspected terrorist,they could do it to you as well.

Giving authority to a government organisation to 'remove' people,has no end to its applications and abuses.

You may not agree to something the government does in the future,but would be too scared to say anything in case they removed you without trial.

The people of this country pioneered the rights that protect us from such behaviour.

[paul65]

paul65 - you will find yourself in a very small minority.

 

I'm not too worried about that.

 

And this whole Islamic terrorism situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does, and I believe 'we', as nations under attack, will have to eventually take drastic steps to resolve it.

[Rewulf]

 

I'm not too worried about that.

 

And this whole Islamic terrorism situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does, and I believe 'we', as nations under attack, will have to eventually take drastic steps to resolve it.

 

You might find those drastic steps are the start of some totalitarian police state,where you have no civil liberties,virtually no freedom,an oppressive quasi government and a way of life you have never imagined would happen outside of books and films.

Some believe its going to happen anyway,the pieces on the board are not set up quite right yet,but when people actually call for the things you are suggesting,it will simply usher it in sooner,as in ,your lifetime.

[iano]

 

In that case it's hardly 'covert'.

 

It reports on what was done. Wasn't known at the time.

[Gordon R]

paul65 - I trust you are not one of those individuals who complain about tougher gun laws, but will happily subscribe to people being detained without trial or bumped off.

 

There are countries in the World who probably do what you suggest. Are you sure you are living in the right country? A banana republic might be more suited to your taste.

[paul65]

paul65 - I trust you are not one of those individuals who complain about tougher gun laws, but will happily subscribe to people being detained without trial or bumped off.

 

There are countries in the World who probably do what you suggest. Are you sure you are living in the right country? A banana republic might be more suited to your taste.

 

Portray me as you like. We will be forced to take steps appropriate for wartime to resolve this ongoing assault on us. And there will be hand wringing from those who hope it will all just go away if we are nice to each other.

[Scully]

 

It reports on what was done. Wasn't known at the time.

 

Fair enough. I was responding to the posters claim that 'we never knew who they were'. Without reading them I'm assuming they were during a time of war?

I have no doubt there have been instances of CIA initiated such like incidences, and am aware the Israelis have carried out such covert operations, but none of the worlds major threats to world peace have ever just disappeared or been removed in this way. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong.

[Muddy Funker]

 

Really? Even if it were true, which I doubt, is that what we really want? Who decides 'we' are in the right; who decides who poses the relevant level of threat, and where do we draw the line?

 

I reckon so yes. I'm not saying it's what I really want no. Those that decide would have all the available intel and information needed to make that sort of decision at a guess?

[old man]

paul65 - I trust you are not one of those individuals who complain about tougher gun laws, but will happily subscribe to people being detained without trial or bumped off.

 

There are countries in the World who probably do what you suggest. Are you sure you are living in the right country? A banana republic might be more suited to your taste.

Aren't we in this sorry mess because of actions such as this by teflon and his mate?

[UKPoacher]

 

I reckon so yes. I'm not saying it's what I really want no. Those that decide would have all the available intel and information needed to make that sort of decision at a guess?

 

Yep. And don't you dare jump a ticket barrier on the Tube.

[rodp]

Well, another thread full of folk saying "you can't do this, you can't do that, that's going to cause more trouble, or this will offend some". What do the good and great among you suggest then ? Something needs doing, and it needs doing now. So all the high and mighty decrying any and all suggestions may want to tell us mere mortals just what the answer is.

To say " we need to negotiate, or we need to sit down and think about it" just isn't the answer, we haven't got the time or resources. And to keep on regurgitating the same old rubbish about WHY it's happened is pointless, a complete waste of time and just detracts from the important questions.

Something positive needs doing, and it needs doing quickly and NOW. So what's the answer then gents ?

[Glenlivet]

Well, another thread full of folk saying "you can't do this, you can't do that, that's going to cause more trouble, or this will offend some". What do the good and great among you suggest then ? Something needs doing, and it needs doing now. So all the high and mighty decrying any and all suggestions may want to tell us mere mortals just what the answer is.

To say " we need to negotiate, or we need to sit down and think about it" just isn't the answer, we haven't got the time or resources. And to keep on regurgitating the same old rubbish about WHY it's happened is pointless, a complete waste of time and just detracts from the important questions.

Something positive needs doing, and it needs doing quickly and NOW. So what's the answer then gents ?

First up, why are we trying to stop these people travelling to Syria? If someone wants to go we should facilitate that and at the airport rescind their passport/citizenship and dna test for future identification. Get all the bad guys in one place.

 

And before anyone says that it's illegal to make someone stateless, who cares??

 

Also scrap Schengen. I thought it was a bad idea at the time, now proving disastrous.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Glenlivet