Surely Only Way To Prevent Terror Attacks is By Focusing on the Potential Perpetrators

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

According to May the New IRA is an immediate threat.

Here in the US you are far more likely to be killed by a white guy with a gun. We just had a black man killed by a white supremacist. And let's not forget Dylan Roof.

Once again, any extremist is a potential danger. So why should only potential extremist Muslims be subjected to laws that curtail their rights?

I was referring to the UK situation. In the US almost everybody has a gun or access to one unlike the UK!

originally posted by: Painterz
If you listen to Islamists complaints about why they hate the West, it's because of our invasion of Iraq, it's because of Afghanistan, it's because of our bombing campaign in Syria. It's all because of our Foreigh POlicy blunders of the last 20 years.

We need smarter foreign policy.

We need to stop knee jerk bombings. We have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in these countries, women and children. Of course they hate us now.

I agree that efforts need to be made in improving FP but there is no excuse or justification for what happened in Manchester.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Let me tell you that the issue is with the Islamic faith and some of its beliefs!

This is pure ignorance and hate.

There is nothing hate about it! Some of the beliefs the way they are conveyed in mosques around the world including the UK and by Saudi preachers is a problem. This was raised and acknowledge on Question Time lastnight! Maybe you should watch it! If you don't understand this then it is not my ignorance!

It doesn't matter how you defend it. It is hatred to use their beliefs to justify oppressing Muslims. Freedom of religion cannot be disobeyed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Quick question. Have you ever heard of the term "Innocent until proven guilty"?

You can only prove them guilty when its too late and only if they survive so for me this should not apply to Islamic extremists with evil in their hearts and minds!!! In France its the other way round! But so what when we are talking about prevention and keeping our kids safe!!

Tell me how to identify "islamic extremists" without violating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

I would leave that to the experts in the security services. They well know because they collate and manage watch lists of these people. And it would not surprise if they new many of these people they have arrested of the network that was behind and supported Abedi! They appear powerless to act because the laws are not there to enable them to take preventative measures.

I do think that there will now be new offences/law/s to come our of this tragedy which will help with prevention.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Let me tell you that the issue is with the Islamic faith and some of its beliefs!

This is pure ignorance and hate.

There is nothing hate about it! Some of the beliefs the way they are conveyed in mosques around the world including the UK and by Saudi preachers is a problem. This was raised and acknowledge on Question Time lastnight! Maybe you should watch it! If you don't understand this then it is not my ignorance!

It doesn't matter how you defend it. It is hatred to use their beliefs to justify oppressing Muslims. Freedom of religion cannot be disobeyed.

Not about oppressing Muslims but dealing with Islamic extremists who need to be curtailed and stopped from spreading their sick dogma and from committing such evil attacks! No one is saying that good honest Muslim's will or should be oppressed! We are talking about dealing with only the bad!!

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Quick question. Have you ever heard of the term "Innocent until proven guilty"?

You can only prove them guilty when its too late and only if they survive so for me this should not apply to Islamic extremists with evil in their hearts and minds!!! In France its the other way round! But so what when we are talking about prevention and keeping our kids safe!!

Tell me how to identify "islamic extremists" without violating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

I would leave that to the experts in the security services. They well know because they collate and manage watch lists of these people. And it would not surprise if they new many of these people they have arrested of the network that was behind and supported Abedi! They appear powerless to act because the laws are not there to enable them to take preventative measures.

I do think that there will now be new offences/law/s to come our of this tragedy which will help with prevention.

Your entire thread is suggesting how to deal with would be terrorists and you are trying to punt the details away because you can't think of any ideas that would handle this that are Constitutional?

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Let me tell you that the issue is with the Islamic faith and some of its beliefs!

This is pure ignorance and hate.

There is nothing hate about it! Some of the beliefs the way they are conveyed in mosques around the world including the UK and by Saudi preachers is a problem. This was raised and acknowledge on Question Time lastnight! Maybe you should watch it! If you don't understand this then it is not my ignorance!

It doesn't matter how you defend it. It is hatred to use their beliefs to justify oppressing Muslims. Freedom of religion cannot be disobeyed.

Not about oppressing Muslims but dealing with Islamic extremists who need to be curtailed and stopped from spreading their sick dogma and from committing such evil attacks! No one is saying that good honest Muslim's will or should be oppressed! We are talking about dealing with only the bad!!

Yet you are unable to suggest any ways to legally identify these people outside of blanket targeting all Muslims, which is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Let me tell you that the issue is with the Islamic faith and some of its beliefs!

This is pure ignorance and hate.

There is nothing hate about it! Some of the beliefs the way they are conveyed in mosques around the world including the UK and by Saudi preachers is a problem. This was raised and acknowledge on Question Time lastnight! Maybe you should watch it! If you don't understand this then it is not my ignorance!

It doesn't matter how you defend it. It is hatred to use their beliefs to justify oppressing Muslims. Freedom of religion cannot be disobeyed.

Not about oppressing Muslims but dealing with Islamic extremists who need to be curtailed and stopped from spreading their sick dogma and from committing such evil attacks! No one is saying that good honest Muslim's will or should be oppressed! We are talking about dealing with only the bad!!

Yet you are unable to suggest any ways to legally identify these people outside of blanket targeting all Muslims, which is unconstitutional.

There is no suggestion of blanket targeting anyone. But a good place to start is with the 4 points I listed at the beginning of this thread. However, I am sure that there are many other ways which are used to identify potential perpetrators and I'm sure that the experts in the security services no far better than I!

It is interesting to note that no poster has attempted to add to the list..................which I do find strange.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Quick question. Have you ever heard of the term "Innocent until proven guilty"?

You can only prove them guilty when its too late and only if they survive so for me this should not apply to Islamic extremists with evil in their hearts and minds!!! In France its the other way round! But so what when we are talking about prevention and keeping our kids safe!!

Tell me how to identify "islamic extremists" without violating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

I would leave that to the experts in the security services. They well know because they collate and manage watch lists of these people. And it would not surprise if they new many of these people they have arrested of the network that was behind and supported Abedi! They appear powerless to act because the laws are not there to enable them to take preventative measures.

I do think that there will now be new offences/law/s to come our of this tragedy which will help with prevention.

Your entire thread is suggesting how to deal with would be terrorists and you are trying to punt the details away because you can't think of any ideas that would handle this that are Constitutional?

Lets wait and see what the UK government comes up with in terms of new offences and laws and they will, rest assured, how that fits in with the constitution we will have to see.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Let me tell you that the issue is with the Islamic faith and some of its beliefs!

This is pure ignorance and hate.

There is nothing hate about it! Some of the beliefs the way they are conveyed in mosques around the world including the UK and by Saudi preachers is a problem. This was raised and acknowledge on Question Time lastnight! Maybe you should watch it! If you don't understand this then it is not my ignorance!

It doesn't matter how you defend it. It is hatred to use their beliefs to justify oppressing Muslims. Freedom of religion cannot be disobeyed.

Not about oppressing Muslims but dealing with Islamic extremists who need to be curtailed and stopped from spreading their sick dogma and from committing such evil attacks! No one is saying that good honest Muslim's will or should be oppressed! We are talking about dealing with only the bad!!

Yet you are unable to suggest any ways to legally identify these people outside of blanket targeting all Muslims, which is unconstitutional.

There is no suggestion of blanket targeting anyone. But a good place to start is with the 4 points I listed at the beginning of this thread. However, I am sure that there are many other ways which are used to identify potential perpetrators and I'm sure that the experts in the security services no far better than I!

It is interesting to note that no poster has attempted to add to the list..................which I do find strange.

Your four points violate the 14th Amendment. I don't know what the UK protections are, but I'm pretty sure they have Due Process protection in their legal code too.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Quick question. Have you ever heard of the term "Innocent until proven guilty"?

You can only prove them guilty when its too late and only if they survive so for me this should not apply to Islamic extremists with evil in their hearts and minds!!! In France its the other way round! But so what when we are talking about prevention and keeping our kids safe!!

Tell me how to identify "islamic extremists" without violating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

I would leave that to the experts in the security services. They well know because they collate and manage watch lists of these people. And it would not surprise if they new many of these people they have arrested of the network that was behind and supported Abedi! They appear powerless to act because the laws are not there to enable them to take preventative measures.

I do think that there will now be new offences/law/s to come our of this tragedy which will help with prevention.

Your entire thread is suggesting how to deal with would be terrorists and you are trying to punt the details away because you can't think of any ideas that would handle this that are Constitutional?

Lets wait and see what the UK government comes up with in terms of new offences and laws and they will, rest assured, how that fits in with the constitution we will have to see.

Or they'll continue as they have done recognizing that no solution is 100% safe.

I think no 5 on your list should be that in the event of a terrorist attack like Manchester , Westminster Bridge or the 7/7 attacks , the perpetrators if they survive and their entire extended family should be deported back to whichever war torn dilapidated part of the world we rescued them from . And I mean every single one from the 90 year old grandma being cared for by the NHS to the half British newborn . Send them all back to whatever place they have historic ties to even if it goes back 3 generations. Perhaps then they might think twice. Perhaps .
I know this would do nothing to prevent a non citizen with no ties to the UK from acts of terror but there are other ways we could deal with them .

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

You continue to miss the point I'm making. I'm trying to show you that extremism is deadly regardless of the descriptor attached to it. It doesn't matter if it's extremist Islam, extremist nationalism, extremist white supremacy, extremist whatever. The issue is the extremism. Not the word that it's followed by. So if you want to write a law (as draconian as I think your proposed law is) why not have it focus on extremism in general?

Let's be fair, with the way that things are going it's only a matter of time before a nationalist/neo-Nazi group or lone wolf launches an attack on a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. If you're worried about preventing innocent deaths why would you not want the perpetrator of such an attack also covered by your law? What if the British government is correct and the New IRA does prove to be a substantial threat to the UK. Why would you not want a terrorist organization like that covered by such a law?

originally posted by: Semidemigod
I think no 5 on your list should be that in the event of a terrorist attack like Manchester , Westminster Bridge or the 7/7 attacks , the perpetrators if they survive and their entire extended family should be deported back to whichever war torn dilapidated part of the world we rescued them from . And I mean every single one from the 90 year old grandma being cared for by the NHS to the half British newborn . Send them all back to whatever place they have historic ties to even if it goes back 3 generations. Perhaps then they might think twice. Perhaps .
I know this would do nothing to prevent a non citizen with no ties to the UK from acts of terror but there are other ways we could deal with them .

That terrorist in UK was native born... So, even if this were a legal and realistic idea (which it isn't; it's inhumane as #) they'd just end up deporting him to the UK.

a reply to: Semidemigod

How is that really any different than the North Korean law that requires the death of anyone related to a political dissident?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

because I never mentioned killing anyone . Deport the entire extended family . If the banana republic they came from kill them the next home grown jihadis MIGHT think twice .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read what I wrote again . And tell me just how humane it is strapping a bomb yo yourself and blowing up 90 children?

a reply to: Semidemigod

The mentality behind it is the same though. Punish the whole family because one person broke the law. How does that fit with the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty? Such a law will not dissuade a terrorist, especially a religiously motivated one, from ding what they're planning to do. These extremists feel like they're driven by a higher purpose that supersedes anyone and anything.

The only thing such a law would do is punish the innocent. And maybe make the average Joe feel like something was actually achieved. It wouldn't actually curtail terrorist activities.

originally posted by: Semidemigod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read what I wrote again . And tell me just how humane it is strapping a bomb yo yourself and blowing up 90 children?

"Humane" is irrelevant in the face of due process. You cannot violate due process because of your emotions, and you DEFINITELY cannot hold someone's family guilty for that person's crimes.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first one and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2.?
3.?

Whites live in a different world of thought.
Get real here.
The whites have lost all direction of "common sense" due to that #te they put in tooth paste called floride.

Only white people use toothpaste?

What do Islamist's use?.........plastic explosive

Wasn't that funny! Maybe we should find out what toothpaste Islamist's use and poison it so that it makes them nice people!

It wasn't funny at all.

Nor was it relevant.

Why not? The bast.rds need poisoning and that would be too good for them!

Neat. If you ever get back to discussing the topic, or what I said, lemme know. If you're just going to post irrelevant drivel, kindly direct it at Krazy. He puts that stuff in his scrapbook.

The discussion is ongoing, feel free to join in further.

My you bite like a b.tch! Stay cool boy.

Spewing non sequiturs isn't a discussion, tough guy. All you've done is parrot talking points without a shred of original thinking, and done so in response to things your talking point isn't even remotely relevant to.

I'm sorry that you've been triggered so easily, but if you're going to call names then put your big boy pants on and spell them correctly. At least that way your utter irrelevance will at least have some semblance of maturity.