Detain, deport, exclude: this is how Britain should respond to terror

On Monday we saw something we have never before seen in the UK. We saw an attack that was specifically intended to kill, maim and permanently disfigure our children. No self-respecting nation can tolerate such a barbaric assault on its youth and its future. If we fail to take decisive action now to protect our young people from such depredations, in the words of Admiral Leach when British sovereignty was violated in the Falklands: “we shall be living in a different country”.

The government must move beyond its well-rehearsed hand-wringing promises to increase police on the streets, tackle underlying causes and invest more cash in the “Prevent” agenda. We have heard this after every attack since July 2005 and we know it doesn’t work. After every attack we have also heard that the attacker was known to the security services, yet somehow got through. How can this be, when we have the finest intelligence and police services in the world?

Because we have given them an impossible job. The head of MI5 says there are over 3,000 people at large in the UK today, known to be involved in terrorism. It is impossible to keep tabs on them all, which is why, despite hundreds of terrorist attacks disrupted by our security services, the Manchester bomb this week and the car ramming in Westminster two months ago succeeded.

The only answer is to reduce that 3,000. Of course those that can be prosecuted and imprisoned should be. But too often, while intelligence confirms their involvement in extremism, forensic evidence sufficient for conviction is either lacking or cannot be used for security reasons.

We have to take a harder line with those we cannot convict yet we know present a serious threat.
Non-British citizens involved in any type of terrorist activity in the UK should be deported. British citizens should be detained or placed under some other form of effective control. Those who leave the country to commit mass murder, rape and torture with the Islamic State or any other jihadist group should be banned from re-entry.

I am not suggesting we become a police state. These measures would apply only to individuals on whom we have intelligence that proves their involvement in terrorism. The decision to deport, detain or exclude would be made by a panel of senior judges cleared to review secret intelligence.

The British always fight the last war, and many argue that internment was tried and failed in Northern Ireland in 1971. Back then serious mistakes were made which we can learn from. The fact that it did not work half a century ago doesn’t mean it could not be made to work today. There are other obvious difficulties. It is possible some innocent people might be deported or detained. That is a risk we run in any judicial procedure. But it is better to adopt an imperfect solution than to again see our children bleeding and dying in our cities.

There would inevitably be legal challenges, with the prospect of courts, police and intelligence services tied up in decades of damaging litigation. This must be avoided by cast iron legislation, reviewable only by British judges and not subject to scrutiny by international courts that don’t share our principles or priorities.
Some argue that these measures are racist, discriminatory and would cause outrage and violence among the Muslim communities in this country. But I do not suggest we single out any culture, race or religion. Only those who want to kill us and destroy our way of life.

And the very same people who tell us that Muslims would be enraged also tell us that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support or sympathise with terrorists. Why then would they oppose measures designed to prevent terrorism and the killing of Muslims as well as non-Muslims?

The Islamic State is collapsing as a cohesive entity in Syria and Iraq but they will not go away. Instead they will shift their shape and disperse. Hundreds of Britons are among them and many will return with orders to attack. They are the most dangerous terrorists we have ever faced. Not only have they been trained in techniques of unlimited terror but they have been blooded in battle. It is much easier for a terrorist to kill after he has taken part in violence and slaughter.

Our children had a taste of this forthcoming horror in Manchester this week. Many died a terrible death. Many more, disabled, disfigured, distraught, their young lives forever ruined, lie in hospital tonight.
The government has a duty to do everything it can — no matter how unpalatable — to ensure this evil is eliminated from our cities.





https://medium.com/@ColonelRichardKemp/detain-deport-exclude-this-is-how-britain-should-respond-to-terror-7da5666f74da




Its a difficult road to take on this and can see arguments for and against on this and am against interment camps full stop, but the reporter saying that he went to Libya and its not known if he went to Syria, as if this makes a difference. When the former is now the second home of ISIS. Shows how some reporters are really not seeing the full problem here. If he went to Libya and holds extreme views against Britain supporting ISIS< then they are a serious problem. Nobody should be allowed back if they go off and fight for ISIS. That is one thing that has to change and they should be charged with treason, as they are fighting for a group that is at war with the UK.

I am in full agreement with that statement from Thorin, and those measures should be brought in ASAP !!!!

Or the more Obvious
ACT ON INFORMATION GIVEN !!!!

here we are down here thinking "Well Brits must have a fucked up relationship with the Muslims Community if the Muslim Community wont report Potential terrorists" only to find out it is British Authorities Ignoring the Muslims community when they do.

nicko wrote:I am in full agreement with that statement from Thorin,    and those measures should be brought in ASAP !!!!

Thanks mate

veya_victaous wrote:Or the more Obvious
ACT ON INFORMATION GIVEN !!!!

here we are down here thinking "Well Brits must have a fucked up relationship with the Muslims Community if the Muslim Community wont report Potential terrorists" only to find out it is British Authorities Ignoring the Muslims community when they do.

there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Or the more Obvious
ACT ON INFORMATION GIVEN !!!!

here we are down here thinking "Well Brits must have a fucked up relationship with the Muslims Community if the Muslim Community wont report Potential terrorists" only to find out it is British Authorities Ignoring the Muslims community when they do.

there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

War is expensive; peace is cheaper. All you are doing is adding up the costs of antagonism. They shoulda thought of that before they started the war in Iraq.

There's still time.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

War is expensive; peace is cheaper.  All you are doing is adding up the costs of antagonism.  They shoulda thought of that before they started the war in Iraq.

There's still time.

how do you make peace with a group who's whole ethos is to kill everyone who is not part of their group?

It is not just the west they want to kill, it is all the other Muslims who dont wear the same hat as they do.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

War is expensive; peace is cheaper.  All you are doing is adding up the costs of antagonism.  They shoulda thought of that before they started the war in Iraq.

There's still time.

peace comes at a cost in lives of those willing to fight for it.

War appears to be part of the human condition as there are 38 conflicts going on around the world at the moment, that's at least 20% of the countries of the world involved in conflict.

It does not go away by burying your head in the sand and pretending it does not happen.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

War is expensive; peace is cheaper.  All you are doing is adding up the costs of antagonism.  They shoulda thought of that before they started the war in Iraq.

There's still time.

peace comes at a cost in lives of those willing to fight for it.

War appears to be part of the human condition as there are 38 conflicts going on around the world at the moment, that's at least 20% of the countries of the world involved in conflict.

It does not go away by burying your head in the sand and pretending it does not happen.

If you don't have a fight, don't try to pick a fight.

We seem to be trying to fit into a persona.  We have these visions--a western film, or a war film, or cops and robbers--in which we are the white heroes, and we write scripts about good guys and bad guys (isn't it the NRA who writes scripts about good guys and bad guys?). We invent war where none exists.  We need to stop finding roles...in the final analysis, we're just finding ways at killing babies.

It's not burying you head in the sand if you find peace, and leave it peaceful.  What we did in Viet Nam and Iraq was look for trouble, where none existed.  (What for?)  Quite the opposite of what you are saying, we found peace and created a billion or more who now hate us.  

Nice job.

Killing Babies again,---sigh, do you have "a thing" about Babies?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
peace comes at a cost in lives of those willing to fight for it.

War appears to be part of the human condition as there are 38 conflicts going on around the world at the moment, that's at least 20% of the countries of the world involved in conflict.

It does not go away by burying your head in the sand and pretending it does not happen.

If you don't have a fight, don't try to pick a fight.

We seem to be trying to fit into a persona.  We have these visions--a western film, or a war film, or cops and robbers--in which we are the white heroes, and we write scripts about good guys and bad guys (isn't it the NRA who writes scripts about good guys and bad guys?).  We invent war where none exists.  We need to stop finding roles...in the final analysis, we're just finding ways at killing babies.

It's not burying you head in the sand if you find peace, and leave it peaceful.  What we did in Viet Nam and Iraq was look for trouble, where none existed.  (What for?)  Quite the opposite of what you are saying, we found peace and created a billion or more who now hate us.  

Nice job.

yes many people said that during the early 30's about hitler. It was called appeasement. Remind us how that worked out.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
peace comes at a cost in lives of those willing to fight for it.

War appears to be part of the human condition as there are 38 conflicts going on around the world at the moment, that's at least 20% of the countries of the world involved in conflict.

It does not go away by burying your head in the sand and pretending it does not happen.

If you don't have a fight, don't try to pick a fight.

We seem to be trying to fit into a persona.  We have these visions--a western film, or a war film, or cops and robbers--in which we are the white heroes, and we write scripts about good guys and bad guys (isn't it the NRA who writes scripts about good guys and bad guys?).  We invent war where none exists.  We need to stop finding roles...in the final analysis, we're just finding ways at killing babies.

It's not burying you head in the sand if you find peace, and leave it peaceful.  What we did in Viet Nam and Iraq was look for trouble, where none existed.  (What for?)  Quite the opposite of what you are saying, we found peace and created a billion or more who now hate us.  

Nice job.

surely you understood why vietnam happened.
Meanwhile back in teh 21st century, it is daesh that are killing babies deliberately and women and boy and girls all because they dont pray in the same way as them.
Yes allied bombs do kill civillians, but mainly because Daesh have put those civilians in harms way and used them as human shield. The allies do not deliberately target civilians and do their utmost to minimise civilian casualties.
the consequence of not doing the right thing is what happened in syria and iraq with the rise of daesh. If we had not finally decided to step in then daesh's rise would have increased and more and more country would have fallen and more and more babies would have been slaughtered. But presumably you would have been fine with that several thousand miles away, and would only have got irritated when it was your son, daughter or grandkids having ntheir wee heads hacked off by some sword wielding religious maniac who hated you because you were not the right sort.

dont look if you are of a fragile nature:

this is what you seem reluctant to fight against

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Or the more Obvious
ACT ON INFORMATION GIVEN !!!!

here we are down here thinking "Well Brits must have a fucked up relationship with the Muslims Community if the Muslim Community wont report Potential terrorists" only to find out it is British Authorities Ignoring the Muslims community when they do.

there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

ACTING means putting those 3000 in jail

23000 seems too many no civilized country could generate than much hate within its own communities surely (it does speak to some sort of greater issue within a society that could do that)

Look at Australia, it's kicking off in Melbourne, [report from relative who lives there.]

Well you certainly have an issue when two thirds of Muslims admit, they would not tip off the Police?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs

In this one half would not.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-Muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/


Thankfully some are reporting to the Police, but that is over half the Muslim population not willing to tackle terrorism.

How many more are thus going unreported?

veya_victaous wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
there are somewhere between 3000 and 23000 active terrorist suspects in the UK. It takes around 30 people to watch one 24/7

that would require a minimum of 90000 and almost 3/4's of a million security people just to watch them.
deportation or internment until the war is over is the only answer that can stop the active threats.
Even then some will inevitably slip through the net.
With so many threats they can only prioritise those they know about.
the terrorists only have to succeed once, the security services need to be 100% successful. they do a remarkable job and have stopped numerous threats this year alone.

Perhaps if less MP's voted endlessly against proposed security measures, one having voted against every security measure since the 80's, less people would be dead now.

ACTING means putting those 3000 in jail

23000 seems too many no civilized country could generate than much hate within its own communities surely (it does speak to some sort of greater issue within a society that could do that)

which is rather the point of the thread, and hopefully will become policy after the election.
however some people vote against all security legislation no matter what it says and have done so since the 80's.
Britian is constrained by the "yuman" rights legislation that gives the same rights to those that care nothing about their victims rights.
We often cannot deport people because of it.
We should be interning them or giving them the option of deportation for the duration of the war.
the security services do sterling work stopping terrorists but they need a 100% record and it is obvious that eventually the terrorists will make a home run.
I would rather put the rights of the majority first, not the rights of those who don't care about other people's rights.

nicko wrote:Look at Australia, it's kicking off in Melbourne,    [report from relative who lives there.]

I seem to remember a terrorist shootout in australia last year or the year before.
The common theme is what exactly I wonder.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

War is expensive; peace is cheaper.  All you are doing is adding up the costs of antagonism.  They shoulda thought of that before they started the war in Iraq.

There's still time.

how do you make peace with a group who's whole ethos is to kill everyone who is not part of their group?

It is not just the west they want to kill, it is all the other Muslims who dont wear the same hat as they do.

Simple. Don't be committed to making war on them. The western nations started this crusade.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
how do you make peace with a group who's whole ethos is to kill everyone who is not part of their group?

It is not just the west they want to kill, it is all the other Muslims who dont wear the same hat as they do.

Simple.  Don't be committed to making war on them.  The western nations started this crusade.

Did they?

nicko wrote:Killing Babies again,---sigh,   do you have "a thing" about Babies?

I have a thing about killing them. Isn't that obvious?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Killing Babies again,---sigh,   do you have "a thing" about Babies?

I have a thing about killing them.  Isn't that obvious?

Yes its called doing nothing and the death toll escalates off this.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you don't have a fight, don't try to pick a fight.

We seem to be trying to fit into a persona.  We have these visions--a western film, or a war film, or cops and robbers--in which we are the white heroes, and we write scripts about good guys and bad guys (isn't it the NRA who writes scripts about good guys and bad guys?).  We invent war where none exists.  We need to stop finding roles...in the final analysis, we're just finding ways at killing babies.

It's not burying you head in the sand if you find peace, and leave it peaceful.  What we did in Viet Nam and Iraq was look for trouble, where none existed.  (What for?)  Quite the opposite of what you are saying, we found peace and created a billion or more who now hate us.  

Nice job.

yes many people said that during the early 30's about hitler. It was called appeasement. Remind us how that worked out.

Reasoning by clichés. We can all find metaphors in history. Hell, we can justify anything by reading the Bible...or the Koran...even the Book of Mormon.

Not everyone is Hitler; and not every effort at peace is appeasement. Those are cheap retorts to reason, typically made by those who don't want to work to figure out the situation.

You avoid significant questions, such as: why did we go into their land, and kill their babies? Why did we need to torture them? Why did we rape their sisters and daughters? Where were the WMD's? Why did we lie...isn't the fact of lying the paramount indication that we were wrong? Ten years wasted; $17-trillion wasted; over 1-million lives wasted, murdered...what did we accomplish?

If I went to your house party and behaved so atrociously, wouldn't you be proper in removing me?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes many people said that during the early 30's about hitler. It was called appeasement. Remind us how that worked out.

Reasoning by clichés.  We can all find metaphors in history.  Hell, we can justify anything by reading the Bible...or the Koran...even the Book of Mormon.

Not everyone is Hitler; and not every effort at peace is appeasement.  Those are cheap retorts to reason, typically made by those who don't want to work to figure out the situation.

You avoid significant questions, such as: why did we go into their land, and kill their babies?  Why did we need to torture them?  Why did we rape their sisters and daughters?  Where were the WMD's?  Why did we lie...isn't the fact of lying the paramount indication that we were wrong?  Ten years wasted; $17-trillion wasted; over 1-million lives wasted, murdered...what did we accomplish?

If I went to your house party and behaved so atrociously, wouldn't you be proper in removing me?

Would you like a list of violence committed in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries?

Are you denying it has happened?

So can you think why it happens far less today?

Thorin wrote:Al Qaeda was founded in 1988...

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928...it amounted to nothing until we made them something.  

Al Qaeda and ISIS wouldn't be a pimple on a gnat's ass if we didn't made them into something.  FCS...their cavalry is a bunch of broken-down, 1967 Chevy pickup trucks.  They are a threat only on the front pages of our newspapers.

It's all about us, whining and wringing our hands.

Lil Bo Peep, has lost her sheep,
And doesn't know where to find them...
Leave 'em alone, and they'll come home,
Wagging their tails behind 'em.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Al Qaeda was founded in 1988...

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928...it amounted to nothing until we made them something.  

Al Qaeda and ISIS wouldn't be a pimple on a gnat's ass if we didn't made them into something.  FCS...their cavalry is a bunch of broken-down, 1967 Chevy pickup trucks.  They are a threat only on the front pages of our newspapers.

It's all about us, whining and wringing our hands.

]

So when shown facts you go on about a Political body who granted back Hamas (who commits terrorism also) etc and are political Islam. Though are neither Al Qaeda or ISIS or the countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

So what did the Yazidi's do in the Iraq war to deserve genocide Quinocchio?

Would you like me to tell you about the Assassins?


How about the Wahhabists against the Ottoman with terrorism?

Do you know how many centuries back they were?

How about Arabization?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Reasoning by clichés.  We can all find metaphors in history.  Hell, we can justify anything by reading the Bible...or the Koran...even the Book of Mormon.

Not everyone is Hitler; and not every effort at peace is appeasement.  Those are cheap retorts to reason, typically made by those who don't want to work to figure out the situation.

You avoid significant questions, such as: why did we go into their land, and kill their babies?  Why did we need to torture them?  Why did we rape their sisters and daughters?  Where were the WMD's?  Why did we lie...isn't the fact of lying the paramount indication that we were wrong?  Ten years wasted; $17-trillion wasted; over 1-million lives wasted, murdered...what did we accomplish?

If I went to your house party and behaved so atrociously, wouldn't you be proper in removing me?

Would you like a list of violence committed in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries?

Are you denying it has happened?

So can you think why it happens far less today?

I can say the Iraq war was just another iteration of the Crusades...invasions and murders made by western christian nations, on a bed full of lies. What more do you need?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Would you like a list of violence committed in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries?

Are you denying it has happened?

So can you think why it happens far less today?

I can say the Iraq war was just another iteration of the Crusades...invasions and murders made by western christian nations, on a bed full of lies.  What more do you need?

So by your view, the crusades were justified by the Arabization conquests by the Arabs in the 7th century then on Christian lands?

You see the further you go back on your poor argument, its Islam that created this problem, based on your own methodology.

So the west's response is just centuries of stemming the tide of Islamic domination and conquest

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928...it amounted to nothing until we made them something.  

Al Qaeda and ISIS wouldn't be a pimple on a gnat's ass if we didn't made them into something.  FCS...their cavalry is a bunch of broken-down, 1967 Chevy pickup trucks.  They are a threat only on the front pages of our newspapers.

It's all about us, whining and wringing our hands.

]

So when shown facts you go on about a Political body who granted back Hamas (who commits terrorism also) etc and are political Islam. Though are neither Al Qaeda or ISIS or the countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

So what did the Yazidi's do in the Iraq war to deserve genocide Quinocchio?

Would you like me to tell you about the Assassins?


How about the Wahhabists against the Ottoman with terrorism?

Do you know how many centuries back they were?

How about Arabization?

None of them amounted to anything until the front page of the New York Times and the London Times made them something...secondary to our wasting $17-trillion in a war that publicized their existence.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So when shown facts you go on about a Political body who granted back Hamas (who commits terrorism also) etc and are political Islam. Though are neither Al Qaeda or ISIS or the countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

So what did the Yazidi's do in the Iraq war to deserve genocide Quinocchio?

Would you like me to tell you about the Assassins?


How about the Wahhabists against the Ottoman with terrorism?

Do you know how many centuries back they were?

How about Arabization?

None of them amounted to anything until the front page of the New York Times and the London Times made them something...secondary to our wasting $17-trillion in a war that publicized their existence.

So people murdered through terrorism accounts to nothing to you?

Wow

They engaged and started a conflict against the west and have been doing so, since some minor warlord united the Arab people. Who I might add were in employ of the Byzantine Empire and then betrayed them, when at their weakest by then invading them. After years of conflict with the Sassanid empire. Who they next turned to conquering.

You need to look at the root cause of the problems and those groups like ISIS etc want the very same thing that happened in the genesis of Islam. Global domination.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I can say the Iraq war was just another iteration of the Crusades...invasions and murders made by western christian nations, on a bed full of lies.  What more do you need?

So by your view, the crusades were justified by the Arabization conquests by the Arabs in the 7th century then on Christian lands?

You see the further you go back on your poor argument, its Islam that created this problem, based on your own methodology.

So the west's response is just centuries of stemming the tide of Islamic domination and conquest

"Justified?"  You are still looking for 'justice' in all this!?  Don't bother...it's stupidity you will find.

"Islam created this problem!?"  Really?  What you seem to be saying is that Muslims are responsible for the Crusades, only you fail to tell us how, every time, the Christians ended up in their country, raping and killing their children.

Why don't you stop trying to impress us with history, and deal with the present.  The only historical thing is the repeated oppression of the west upon the people of the middle east...something called the Crusades.  Iraq is simply another piece of the puzzle, making up a bigger picture.

Thorin wrote:So people murdered through terrorism accounts to nothing to you?

I just got through recounting to you how the terrorism in Iraq amounts to a great deal to me. It's the cause of all terrorism, except perhaps that of the KKK.

Didge, read what is said. You can't just make up the argument. Read, read, read...

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So by your view, the crusades were justified by the Arabization conquests by the Arabs in the 7th century then on Christian lands?

You see the further you go back on your poor argument, its Islam that created this problem, based on your own methodology.

So the west's response is just centuries of stemming the tide of Islamic domination and conquest

"Justified?"  You are still looking for 'justice' in all this!?  Don't bother...it's stupidity you will find.

"Islam created this problem!?"  Really?  What you seem to be saying is that Muslims are responsible for the Crusades, only you fail to tell us how, every time, the Christians ended up in their country, raping and killing their children.

Why don't you stop trying to impress us with history, and deal with the present.  The only historical thing is the repeated oppression of the west upon the people of the middle east...something called the Crusades.  Iraq is simple another piece of the puzzle, making up a bigger picture.

1) Because you say so, after trying to justify the terrorism against the west? Saying they are attacking us because we attacked them. I turn your argument on its head and now you invoke its not justified.

So you agree the response against the west has no justification

Priceless

2) Based on your methodology, not mine. You are saying because we attacked them, when as seen it was the Christians who were attacked and conquered. Now the crusades were about more than anything Minor Frankish Lords carving out kingdoms for themselves but using a Holy war concept based on Deuteronomy, to garner people to flock to its cause. So no, I am know the causes of the crusades and the Cathars were wiped out and also Orthodox Christians were two also. So the first crusades were more about land and power. The later genocide presided over by the Catholic Church.

I am just easily showing up your blame argument for conflicts. If we use your principle, then Islam started this when they invaded and colonized the entire Middle East and North Africa

3) Well this is the thing Quinocchio, I do know history and you don't.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So people murdered through terrorism accounts to nothing to you?

I just got through recounting to you how the terrorism in Iraq amounts to a great deal to me.  It's the cause of all terrorism, except perhaps that of the KKK.

Didge, read what is said.  You can't just make up the argument.  Read, read, read...

You mean by the Shia's and Sunnis causing a sectarian conflict?

I agree, I mean how can people place religious conflict over the freedom of a nation after a Mass murderer in Saddam had been removed.

Iran and Saudi are the ones that have blood on their hands for this

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"Justified?"  You are still looking for 'justice' in all this!?  Don't bother...it's stupidity you will find.

"Islam created this problem!?"  Really?  What you seem to be saying is that Muslims are responsible for the Crusades, only you fail to tell us how, every time, the Christians ended up in their country, raping and killing their children.

Why don't you stop trying to impress us with history, and deal with the present.  The only historical thing is the repeated oppression of the west upon the people of the middle east...something called the Crusades.  Iraq is simple another piece of the puzzle, making up a bigger picture.

1) Because you say so, after trying to justify the terrorism against the west? Saying they are attacking us because we attacked them. I turn your argument on its head and now you invoke its not justified.

So you agree the response against the west has no justification

Again with the 'justice'.  There's no justice in this situation.  There's just cause: one guy hits the other guy; the other guy hits back.  It's been going on that way for 11 centuries.  If you want justice, look to who started it.

I'm more concerned about how to end it.

Thorin wrote:2) Based on your methodology, not mine. You are saying because we attacked them, when as seen it was the Christians who were attacked and conquered. Now the crusades were about more than anything Minor Frankish Lords carving out kingdoms for themselves but using a Holy war concept based on Deuteronomy, to garner people to flock to its cause. So no, I am know the causes of the crusades and the Cathars were wiped out and also Orthodox Christians were two also. So the first crusades were more about land and power. The later genocide presided over by the Catholic Church.

Didge, we're all impressed with your degree in History.  But petty details are not needed...in fact, details clutter up the picture.  The real (bigger) picture is that the Christian nations have been invading and killing the people of the middle east for 11 centuries.  

Thorin wrote:I am just easily showing up your blame argument for conflicts. If we use your principle, then Islam started this when they invaded and colonized the entire Middle East and North Africa

3) Well this is the thing Quinocchio, I do know history and you don't.

But you are not thinking what the issue is.  You are consumed with impressing us with your silly degree in history.  But you are here on the back porch, still looking for justice, or 'blame' as you now call it, without paying attention to causation.

The radical western concern over al Qaeda, now ISIS, is what is fueling this fire.  They are criminals, not warriors...send in the police and the fire department.

Original Quill wrote:
Again with the 'justice'.  There's no justice in this situation.  There's just cause: one guy hits the other guy; the other guy hits back.  It's been going on that way for 11 centuries.  If you want justice, look to who started it.

I'm more concerned about how to end it.

Didge, we're all impressed with your degree in History.  But petty details are not needed...in fact, details clutter up the picture.  The real (bigger) picture is that the Christian nations have been invading and killing the people of the middle east for 11 centuries.  

But you are not thinking what the issue is.  You are consumed with impressing us with your silly degree in history.  But you are here on the back porch, still looking for justice, or 'blame' as you now call it, without paying attention to causation.

The radical western concern over al Qaeda, now ISIS, is what is fueling this fire.  They are criminals, not warriors...send in the police and the fire department.

If you are more concerned how to end it, then why do you keep looking in the wrong places and not on why for over 1400 years the same problem has continued unabated.

The only reason you see this through terrorism today. Is there is no no Global united Islamic force as there once was. It was only in the 17th century that Arabization was finally checked at the doors of Vienna. So why are you ignoring a thousand years of war and conquest with Islam in the west alone?

So the question is why are you not looking at the root causes? These terrorist groups want to unite Islam under a caliphate and have global domination. The main goal of both Christianity and Islam is for it to be predominant throughout the world. Hence why both for centuries conquered and spread the religion.

So its clear you are looking in all the wrong places.

Why is there terrorism in Nigeria or Indonesia? They have nothing to do with Iraq do they?

"
"Send in the Police and the Fire Dept" you are joking aren't you?

veya_victaous wrote:Or the more Obvious
ACT ON INFORMATION GIVEN !!!!

here we are down here thinking "Well Brits must have a fucked up relationship with the Muslims Community if the Muslim Community wont report Potential terrorists" only to find out it is British Authorities Ignoring the Muslims community when they do.

someone may have informed the authorities but it wasn't his mosque

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40079948

nicko wrote:"
"Send in the Police and the Fire Dept" you are joking aren't you?

Not at all.  If you haven't noticed, the damage that ISIS operatives do is not something calling for any sort of military action.  In other words, their so-called terrorism doesn't reach the level of what we would recognize as field warfare.  America has learned (I don't know about the UK) that sending in the military is not only feckless, but counterproductive.  It only presents tremendous opportunities to ISIS for more newsworthy humiliation of the US.  It's really a publicity game through and through.

This is why I taunt ISIS for being a pickup truck army.  They are incapable of serving up any real threat to the US or the UK.  I don't mean to demean incidents in Manchester or San Bernardino, but look at what happened...police and fire departments took care of matters just fine.  They are police matters, not military matters.  ISIS is so impotent that they simply don't amount to a real threat.  They are newspaper headlines, no more.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:"
"Send in the Police and the Fire Dept" you are joking aren't you?

Not at all.  If you haven't noticed, the damage that ISIS operatives do is not something calling for any sort of military action.  In other words, their so-called terrorism doesn't reach the level of what we would recognize as field warfare.  America has learned (I don't know about the UK) that sending in the military is not only feckless, but counterproductive.  It only presents tremendous opportunities to ISIS for more newsworthy humiliation of the US.  It's really a publicity game through and through.

This is why I taunt ISIS for being a pickup truck army.  They are incapable of serving up any real threat to the US or the UK.  I don't mean to demean incidents in Manchester or San Bernardino, but look at what happened...police and fire departments took care of matters just fine.  They are police matters, not military matters.  ISIS is so impotent that they simply don't amount to a real threat.  They are newspaper headlines, no more.

Wow

Apart from tens of thousands murdered through genocide of course. Let alone as you call it a pick-up truck army how they managed to take over swathes of Iraq and Syria with military means. Defeating professionally trained armed forces in both countries. That its because of that poor nativity that saw ISIS make massive gains. Plus the fact they are a threat to the west, as they have been able to carry out numerous attacks successfully that have caused mass loss of life. You just did demean the severity of the attacks and rendered the victims as basically insignificant. Not only in the countless terrorist attacks ISIS have carried out but the tens of thousands murdered by them in Syria and Iraq.

This is why on such a subject, you will not be surprised when posters do not take you seriously

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not at all.  If you haven't noticed, the damage that ISIS operatives do is not something calling for any sort of military action.  In other words, their so-called terrorism doesn't reach the level of what we would recognize as field warfare.  America has learned (I don't know about the UK) that sending in the military is not only feckless, but counterproductive.  It only presents tremendous opportunities to ISIS for more newsworthy humiliation of the US.  It's really a publicity game through and through.

This is why I taunt ISIS for being a pickup truck army.  They are incapable of serving up any real threat to the US or the UK.  I don't mean to demean incidents in Manchester or San Bernardino, but look at what happened...police and fire departments took care of matters just fine.  They are police matters, not military matters.  ISIS is so impotent that they simply don't amount to a real threat.  They are newspaper headlines, no more.

Wow

Apart from tens of thousands murdered through genocide of course. Let alone as you call it a pick-up truck army how they managed to take over swathes of Iraq and Syria with military means. Defeating professionally trained armed forces in both countries. That its because of that poor nativity that saw ISIS make massive gains. Plus the fact they are a threat to the west, as they have been able to carry out numerous attacks successfully that have caused mass loss of life. You just did demean the severity of the attacks and rendered the victims as basically insignificant. Not only in the countless terrorist attacks ISIS have carried out but the tens of thousands murdered by them in Syria and Iraq.

This is why on such a subject, you will not be surprised when posters do not take you seriously

they managed to take over iraq because the army was totally unprepared and large numbers of them simply didn't exist and others more or less sided with the sunni ISIS while their shia officers fled.

I doubt they expected such an easy victory in iraq.

The wests desperation to flee before the job was done helped them to victory.

Well, don't blame the "grunts" they wanted to finish the job.

Dino wrote:The wests desperation to flee before the job was done helped them to victory.

What can I say, when you're wrong, you're wrong.

Once the citizens of the western nations realized that they have been lied to and 'duped', they had to do the right thing: walk away. After all, two wrongs don't make a right.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Wow

Apart from tens of thousands murdered through genocide of course. Let alone as you call it a pick-up truck army how they managed to take over swathes of Iraq and Syria with military means. Defeating professionally trained armed forces in both countries. That its because of that poor nativity that saw ISIS make massive gains. Plus the fact they are a threat to the west, as they have been able to carry out numerous attacks successfully that have caused mass loss of life. You just did demean the severity of the attacks and rendered the victims as basically insignificant. Not only in the countless terrorist attacks ISIS have carried out but the tens of thousands murdered by them in Syria and Iraq.

This is why on such a subject, you will not be surprised when posters do not take you seriously

they managed to take over iraq because the army was totally unprepared and large numbers of them simply didn't exist and others more or less sided with the sunni ISIS while their shia officers fled.

I doubt they expected such an easy victory in iraq.

The wests desperation to flee before the job was done helped them to victory.

Actually you will find is many of ISIS are former army personnel, hence why they did win countless battles. So they are better organised than you know.

They did expect to win and why they coordinated attacks at weak points, hence the massive gains they made