Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 12:53 pm

fate
Does that exclude Western democracies doing anything other than responding to terrorism as if it is just another criminal enterprise? If not, what else is acceptable?


You seem to be ignorant of The Investigatory Powers Act in the UK. Or any of the significant anti-terror laws that were enacted across Europe.
You can look some of them up here.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eu ... 2/2017/en/

These laws and the intelligence and security forces that wield the laws are a pretty clear indication that no one is responding to terrorism as if it is just another criminal enterprise...
What makes you think that there isn't a considerable effort being made?
The NSA has a budget of $52 billion dollars. Much of it targeting terrorism.
The FBI and CIA have considerable resources expended on anti terrorism.
The combined intelligence and policing resources of the Five Eyes nations, and NATO nations are arrayed against terrorism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 45221.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/po ... plots.html

The last few incidents of terror have been low tech attacks by self radicalized individuals. Its hard to interdict a plot that only takes a van and three knives and the impulse to act...
Nothing will make safe the entire world from acts like this.... And we never have been entirely safe from acts like this... Sometimes just crazy people with no political motivation shoot up a school or a theatre...

Perhaps you have compelling evidence that contradicts this, or perhaps your just popping off ala "Trump the Ignorant".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 1:42 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Does that exclude Western democracies doing anything other than responding to terrorism as if it is just another criminal enterprise? If not, what else is acceptable?


You seem to be ignorant of The Investigatory Powers Act in the UK. Or any of the significant anti-terror laws that were enacted across Europe.
You can look some of them up here.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eu ... 2/2017/en/

These laws and the intelligence and security forces that wield the laws are a pretty clear indication that no one is responding to terrorism as if it is just another criminal enterprise...
What makes you think that there isn't a considerable effort being made?
The NSA has a budget of $52 billion dollars. Much of it targeting terrorism.
The FBI and CIA have considerable resources expended on anti terrorism.
The combined intelligence and policing resources of the Five Eyes nations, and NATO nations are arrayed against terrorism.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 45221.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/po ... plots.html

The last few incidents of terror have been low tech attacks by self radicalized individuals. Its hard to interdict a plot that only takes a van and three knives and the impulse to act...
Nothing will make safe the entire world from acts like this.... And we never have been entirely safe from acts like this... Sometimes just crazy people with no political motivation shoot up a school or a theatre...

Perhaps you have compelling evidence that contradicts this, or perhaps your just popping off ala "Trump the Ignorant".


No sir. As usual, you are ignorant. More accurately, you're a donkey--stubborn, proud, and defiant in your ignorance.

One of the terrorists in London was on a TV show, "The Jihadi Next Door."

How much money would it take to find him? How much effort would it take to stop him?

Some of these terrorists go abroad and train, then return to murder. Why do we let them?

There are mosques known for teaching extremism. Why don't we infiltrate them? Why is the liberal mayor of NYC against that?

Again, what are we willing to do?

And, please, stop embarrassing Canada.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 2:23 pm

fate
One of the terrorists in London was on a TV show, "The Jihadi Next Door."


Was this a crime?

Other than keeping him under 24 hour a day surveillance .... and even then ... there's no 100% certain way to interdict a low tech terrorist.

MI5 can monitor fewer than 50 terrorist suspects around the clock

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-247.html

fate
Some of these terrorists go abroad and train, then return to murder. Why do we let them?

Why do you say stuff you can't back up? Offer some evidence.
because they don't, just Let them return... At least in the UK.

Counter-terror officers believe the criminal courts have the legal arsenal to handle the bulk of the 850 or so foreign fighters who went to Syria from the UK, so long as it can be proved in court they took part in fighting.
It is already a criminal offence to go to Syria or Iraq for the purpose of committing, or aiding, a terrorist act. But security officials are setting in train procedures to manage the return of foreign fighters, especially in cooperation with Turkey, a country many UK foreign fighters are likely to pass through
.

Security officials are well aware of the danger that returning fighter present.. Especially as the caliphate collapses.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 3:49 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
One of the terrorists in London was on a TV show, "The Jihadi Next Door."


Was this a crime?

Other than keeping him under 24 hour a day surveillance .... and even then ... there's no 100% certain way to interdict a low tech terrorist.


More ignorance.

The London Bridge ringleader was arrested by police earlier this year after he attacked an anti-extremist Islamic scholar - but he was let off with a caution.

Khuram Butt was reported to counter-terrorism officers in the wake of the incident. However they concluded he did not pose a threat.

Six months later, Butt, 27, went on the rampage through London Bridge and Borough market, massacring seven innocent people.

MI5 and counter-terrorism police have admitted Butt was known to them since 2015 but they considered him a low priority.


So, he already had been violent. They didn't even jail him. Oh, and for all the millions they spent--they "knew" about him but couldn't stop him. Well, what good is THAT? I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel much better.

The only wonder is that he didn't kill more:

Butt had been reported to the anti-terror authorities on numerous occasions and even posed for a television documentary in front of the black flag of the so-called Islamic State. A day after the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 he had been led away by police from a demonstration outside parliament after lunging at another Muslim moderate who he had called a ‘traitor’.

Despite being on MI5’s watch list, Butt was able to secure a job on the London Underground as a customer services trainee, working at Westminster and Canary Wharf tube stations, both hugely sensitive locations.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... hs-london/

MI5 can monitor fewer than 50 terrorist suspects around the clock

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-247.html


That's government for you.

fate
Some of these terrorists go abroad and train, then return to murder. Why do we let them?

Why do you say stuff you can't back up? Offer some evidence.
because they don't, just Let them return... At least in the UK.


What are you talking about?

Counter-terror officers believe the criminal courts have the legal arsenal to handle the bulk of the 850 or so foreign fighters who went to Syria from the UK, so long as it can be proved in court they took part in fighting.
It is already a criminal offence to go to Syria or Iraq for the purpose of committing, or aiding, a terrorist act. But security officials are setting in train procedures to manage the return of foreign fighters, especially in cooperation with Turkey, a country many UK foreign fighters are likely to pass through
.

Security officials are well aware of the danger that returning fighter present.. Especially as the caliphate collapses.


Read this, o empty-headed one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... ylum-2009/

So, one of the London attackers had fought in Libya, then returned to the UK. The Manchester bomber "also regularly travelled to Libya."

More on Manchester: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 71391.html

Paris:

Most of the Paris attackers were French and Belgian citizens who crossed borders without difficulty, albeit registered as terrorism suspects.[23] Two other attackers were Iraqi.[22] According to the French prime minister, Manuel Valls, several of the perpetrators had exploited Europe's immigration crisis to enter the continent undetected.[25] At least some, including the alleged leader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, had visited Syria and returned radicalised. Jean-Charles Brisard, a French expert on terrorism, called this a change of paradigm, in that returning European citizens were themselves the attackers.[26] The Los Angeles Times reported that more than 3,000 Europeans have travelled to Syria and joined ISIL and other radical groups.[26]


So, how many of those 3000 are sitting in Gitmo or some such? That's where they should be.

More

British people fighting in Syria are being trained as “jihadists” and then encouraged to return to the UK to launch attacks on home soil, an al-Qaeda defector and western security sources have told the Telegraph.
In a rare interview on Turkey’s border with Syria, the defector from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) said that recruits from Britain, Europe and the US were being indoctrinated in extremist anti-Western ideology, trained in how to make and detonate car bombs and suicide vests and sent home to start new terror cells.
He has provided the first confirmation from Syrian rebels that young British men are being indoctrinated in extremist anti-Western ideology.
Some of those intent on overthrowing the Syrian regime are being brainwashed by fanatics, the former member of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) warned.
His comments echo the concerns of the security services at a time when it is feared that up to 500 Britons are fighting in Syria and could return to emulate attacks such as the London bombings and 9/11.
[/quote]

One of us is making bleep up. Unfortunately, it's you. What a surprise.

Get off Huffpo and your lefty sites. Try Google. Get some information--for a change.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 07 Jun 2017, 9:27 pm

@#$! You I'm Millwall!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/@#$!.html

Whoever gets the t-shirt rights to this phrase will be a millionaire overnight.

Millwall should give him season tickets for life!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 5:55 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Here's a question for you freeman,

Where are the so called "silent majority" of Muslims? You know, the majority out there who are peace loving individuals? Where is their outcry when attacks occur every 5 minutes? Where is their leadership? Where are their heroes who are unafraid to stand up to them? Sadiq Kahn? Is he the best we've got?

You can't name Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She left Islam. She doesn't count.

So where are they? Who are they? If they have organized, how many are actively taking steps to counter the battle for young Muslim minds?

Certainly any soldier who has been willing to fight against ISIS is a hero in my book. But they have taken up arms. I'm asking about the "silent majority."

I'm not convinced a silent majority exists.


I would like to say they are your friends, neighbors and co-workers but apparently they're not. Too bad for you Dag.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 6:09 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, many Americans are working to destroy it. That is the essence of the left right now. Sanctuary cities, "resist," etc. are all out to disrupt the government and prevent it from functioning. ?That's not "improvement;" it's destruction.


Being an active participant in your government is the very essence of western civilization. That's what people are doing, nothing wrong, everything right with that.

Diversity of culture, language, and fundamental beliefs about the nature of our country is not "strength." It is division and inherently weakens us. What used to be a "melting pot" is now a series of separate frying pans.


Completely untrue. The strongest nations are the nations that bring a diversity of ideas and people together and get the best from all.

Oh, [Islam] is equal under the law. The problem isn't the law, but how the law is applied. Islam is shown favoritism over and over again. Of course, what many non-Muslim people fail to realize is that Islam is, for most Muslims, not merely a religion. It is a religious and political system, which cannot be divided.


Completely untrue regarding law; Islam is not favored, at least in the USA. In Saudi Arabia, sure. You're focusing on the few and ignoring the many.

Partly true. The problem is that Islamic terrorists do not target heretical Muslims in the US or in the West. They are targeted in majority Muslim countries.


I don't see that as a problem. You want more terrorism in the USA?

You seem like such a reasonable guy Fate, but then you post something like this, and I wonder what kind of America you'd like to live in. Would there be room in your America for my friends and neighbors? Would there be room in it for me and my family?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 7:27 am

Fate
So, he already had been violent. They didn't even jail him. Oh, and for all the millions they spent--they "knew" about him but couldn't stop him. Well, what good is THAT? I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel much better.

The only wonder is that he didn't kill more:

You could be talking about this guy ....
Jeremy Joseph Christian held extremist views, posting neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and far-right material on social media,[25][26] as well as material indicating an affinity for political violence.[10] Christian described himself as a white nationalist.[27] In April 2017, Christian wrote, "I just Challenged Ben Ferencz (Last Living Nuremberg Persecutor)(sic) to a Debate in the Hague with Putin as our judge. I will defend the Nazis and he will defend the AshkeNAZIs [a reference to European Jews]".[28] He had praised Timothy McVeigh in an online posting on April 19, the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing;[26][29] he also "posted conspiracy theory memes from the right-wing Alex Jones Channel".[26] The Oregonian noted that Christian made many contradictory Facebook posts, but that such contradictions are typical of extremists; his posts "reveal a comic book collector with nebulous political affiliations who above all else seemed to hate circumcision and Hillary Clinton".

No one rounded him up and through him in jail for his expression of hate either. Should they have?

You seem willing to surrender the liberties and freedoms offered to citizens of a free society very easily.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jun 2017, 9:48 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2017

Over the last two years Fate could have been talking about any of these. Take a look at the highest death totals. Count the radical Islamic attacks compared to others. I think Fate's point that the preponderance of attacks are being perpetrated by Islamic people is valid. I can count them all up if you want, but facts are there, and you would ignore them anyway.

Yes, JJ Christian is an idiot racist, and I want him put to death for his crimes. Care to top that? I want more punishment than you do.

I also want to stop the increase of Islamic attacks. How do you propose we do that?

The first step is to admit there is a problem. It is clear there is a problem when you look at the facts of the number of attacks and who is behind them.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 11:34 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
So, he already had been violent. They didn't even jail him. Oh, and for all the millions they spent--they "knew" about him but couldn't stop him. Well, what good is THAT? I'm sure that makes the victims' families feel much better.

The only wonder is that he didn't kill more:

You could be talking about this guy ....
Jeremy Joseph Christian held extremist views, posting neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and far-right material on social media,[25][26] as well as material indicating an affinity for political violence.[10] Christian described himself as a white nationalist.[27] In April 2017, Christian wrote, "I just Challenged Ben Ferencz (Last Living Nuremberg Persecutor)(sic) to a Debate in the Hague with Putin as our judge. I will defend the Nazis and he will defend the AshkeNAZIs [a reference to European Jews]".[28] He had praised Timothy McVeigh in an online posting on April 19, the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing;[26][29] he also "posted conspiracy theory memes from the right-wing Alex Jones Channel".[26] The Oregonian noted that Christian made many contradictory Facebook posts, but that such contradictions are typical of extremists; his posts "reveal a comic book collector with nebulous political affiliations who above all else seemed to hate circumcision and Hillary Clinton".

No one rounded him up and through him in jail for his expression of hate either. Should they have?

You seem willing to surrender the liberties and freedoms offered to citizens of a free society very easily.


Ricky's right. There, I said it.

Come on fellas, never surrender the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy for any reason. Some of the stuff I'm reading is this forum is terrifying. Don't you see where your fear is leading you?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I wonder who said that? Not Dr. Fate!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 12:29 pm

geojanes wrote:Ricky's right. There, I said it. !


No, no he's not. He's dragging in something extraneous. It's another "Look at that!" moment from rickyp.

There is a theme in London, Paris, Manchester, the Philippines, Africa, the Middle East, the US, and it's staring everyone in the face but you all want to pretend like these are "lone wolves."

They're not. They all come from the same "pack": virulent Islam. Mr. Christian, neo-nazis, and white supremacists are not a world-wide movement of murder. Islamism is.

Come on fellas, never surrender the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy for any reason. Some of the stuff I'm reading is this forum is terrifying. Don't you see where your fear is leading you?


Oh, I don't know. Where is it leading?

You know what scares liberals in the US? Christians. There, I said it.

Did you hear what the darling of the left, Bernie Sanders, did in a Senate hearing? He told a nominee, in so many words, that Christians are not fit to serve. His line of questioning was all about whether or not this nominee actually believed the Bible. When he would not deny what the Bible says, Sanders said:

I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... lic-office


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I wonder who said that? Not Dr. Fate


I'm not for giving up liberty. I hate what the State is already doing: treating me like a terrorist at the airport, for example. El Al doesn't do what American airlines do--and they have no terror incidents.

Liberals are against self-defense. Liberals are against defending the citizens of this country. I can prove both of those assertions.

So, please, don't tell me about giving up "essential" liberties. What is more essential than the right to defend oneself? What is more essential than for a government to protect its citizens?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jun 2017, 12:32 pm

Benjamin Franklin.

What should be done?

I am fine with deporting for inciting terrorism via electronic means.
I am fine with prison for threats against people or property.
I am fine with the death penalty for murderous terrorism.
I am fine with killing terror leaders wherever they are.

All of these things are fine by me for cause of removing someone's liberty.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 12:54 pm

Like a blind squirrel, Piers Morgan finds a nut.

http://www.mrctv.org/index.php/videos/l ... e-they-are
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Jun 2017, 1:36 pm

Sanders was right. The nominee wrote Muslims have a deficient ideology and stand condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and would not back down from that statement. I do not think we could be confident that he would treat Muslims fairly.

Liberals are not scared of Christians. I do not care what religion people turn to for solace to deal with the difficulties of life. I think probably Christianity is more benign now--that has not always been the case, see Inquisition, witch hunts, etc--and less subject to extremism such as some of the radical interpretations of Islam that are causing so much grief right now. But 200 years ago Immanuel Kant talked about the need for human reason to decide all political and moral issues. He wrote that not even God could determine issues of morality. Pretty radical stuff for a mild-manner philosopher. Anyway, we must decide things based on human reason...not on accepting truths from received dogma. And there is a concern that people that are absolutely certain about things because it has been decided by a higher authority are more fanatical about their beliefs (because they can't be wrong). Once it is ok to believe in some things on faith...what's to stop a person to believe in other things on faith? What's to stop them from rejecting science because it conflicts with things that have been decided by religious belief? And if science threatens religion in some areas...maybe it is something to not be respected in areas that do not conflict with religion. "Faith: not wanting to know what is true."--Nietzsche

So I think Immanuel Kant was right that we should not accept any dogma from any authority--we should assess it ourselves to see if we agree. Someone can be religious but they still should (in my opinion) assess each tenet of the religion to see if they agree with it. And we should all have the humility that we cannot be 100% certain about anything and listen carefully to what others have to say about an issue. The only problem I have with religion is where people get fanatically certain that they are right about an issue because in essence God said so. Because in reality it always come down to a human being saying God said this. And then in another religion another human being said God said a different thing. There is no way to get past human agency unless God appears in person. Until then we have to use our brains to figure things out, as fallible as they be.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Jun 2017, 4:42 pm

freeman3 wrote:Sanders was right. The nominee wrote Muslims have a deficient ideology and stand condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and would not back down from that statement. I do not think we could be confident that he would treat Muslims fairly.


That is a religious test and it is unconstitutional. Shame on Sanders--and on you for not calling it what it is.

The nominee wrote that in a particular context--defending his alma mater, NOT as an agent of the government. A lawyer should know better.

Liberals are not scared of Christians.


Oh, you may be right there. They mock and persecute Christians--see Sanders.

Can you imagine him talking to a Muslim like that?

Never. Never. Never.

Why not? Because the very notion of "Islamophobia" is something no liberal dare be tainted with! It's as bad as being transphobic!