London Bridge
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  08 Jun 17 11.03am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Most of those Islamic nations don't really need the money, and have spend the last decade export their problem, which has become our problem. Plus exporting them to countries which might have sympathies or support for such groups, provides them with intelligence assets, who have contacts and information about potential recruits in the UK that we haven't discovered: potentially giving them a safe haven from which to operate support networks. An example here: We should be very concerned about Jihadists who return from Syria. Not because they might just commit a terrorist action here, but because they'll have contacts and allies in different countries made during their time in Syria who have also returned. A network in the UK that's just UK members is a problem, and can generally be uprooted. When cell networks start to form with contacts that spread across different cell strutcures and into 'safe nations' its almost impossible to destroy them. We shall see if they don't need the money. You are just wrong about most Islamic countries and how wealthy they are.....or indeed the desire for greater wealth. Your point about us having to worry about 'intelligence' and foreign support networds is largely moot. All this information could be given over the Internet by radicals today and I have little doubt is done all the time anyway. Distance, in regards to information means little. Besides, radical groups from within our nation would be severely hit by a policy of deportation. The number of people we have to worry about is far far too large today and this problem is only going to increase as the Islamic population in general increases. We simply don't have the manpower to continually keep up with this......Anyone with the lights on knows that eventually we are going to have reduce this number. Well....anyone who actually cares that is and doesn't have their heads buried in the sand.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Hrolf The Ganger 08 Jun 17 11.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Doesn't exist either, its a human construct. We should treat those who disrupt the status quo differently (and we do). The problem is fairly determining who those people are. Which is what we have a criminal justice system for. We don't say 'ah right, he's not a very good driver he could kill someone'. We establish that once he is a qualified driver, he is treated like anyone else, unless they break the laws of the road. And that's the problem here. We're talking about suspects, people for whom their is insufficient evidence to convict of any crime. Remember that the kind of evidence that security services use is not admissible in court (and not necessarily obtained legally, or fairly). True enough. It is interesting that our desire to treat people fairly actually gets in the way of our natural need to survive, at least in a direct, intuitive sense. Of course statistically, our human values might still give us a personal advantage in order to spread our genes, but our natural urge is to take any steps to protect ourselves and our own above and beyond any greater concept of 'fairness'. Is natural instinct a more effective protection than human values and the systems we employ to uphold them or are they one and the same?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 08 Jun 17 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Doesn't exist either, its a human construct. We should treat those who disrupt the status quo differently (and we do). The problem is fairly determining who those people are. Which is what we have a criminal justice system for. We don't say 'ah right, he's not a very good driver he could kill someone'. We establish that once he is a qualified driver, he is treated like anyone else, unless they break the laws of the road. And that's the problem here. We're talking about suspects, people for whom their is insufficient evidence to convict of any crime. Remember that the kind of evidence that security services use is not admissible in court (and not necessarily obtained legally, or fairly). During the Second World War we interned people based purely on their nationality. That was wrong Now we can be far more scientific, if someone is looking at ISIS propaganda and searching how to make bombs then there are grounds for some form on internment. They can always try the Pete Townsend defence but frankly if you are looking for that stuff then you get what's coming. Internment Ulster or WWII style is not an option, that doesn't mean we can't use it as a tool.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 08 Jun 17 11.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
During the Second World War we interned people based purely on their nationality. That was wrong
It wasn't fair but it was effective. In war the latter is more important than the former.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 08 Jun 17 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It wasn't fair but it was effective. In war the latter is more important than the former. Certainly wasn't wrong. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 08 Jun 17 2.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by europalace
Where did I say that? No more justified than UK/US governments etc (voted in by their own countries citizens) killing thousands of civilians including women and children in a number of foreign countires where they have used military force against the people's will. What you're seeing now in parts of Europe and the UK is a backlash against that military action which has killed so many innocent citizens including children in those countries.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 17 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Certainly wasn't wrong. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. Exactly, and in fairness the treatment of internees wasn't bad either, only a few were held in prisons, the rest at a converted holiday camp. The key thing with interning people is to remember that they aren't criminals, or people who've been accused of a crime, nor scapegoats for the acts of other terrorists. Ireland was a problem straight off the bat, because we effectively imprisoned people, in actual prisons on the flimsiest of excuses and treated them as if they were guilty. That's the kind of s**t that separates Western Democracy from tyranny and IS. That when you take a step like this you do so with great hesitancy, and with a view to restricting the abuse of the power.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 17 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
During the Second World War we interned people based purely on their nationality. I think it was more on their political allegiances, but we did certainly intern some people who were German or had close German ties, along with members of the British Union of Fascists. Its not worthy that we didn't just intern people on the basis of having been born in Germany (in fact we also accepted a s**t load of Germany Jewish refugees, who served in the military and were issued false passports and ID to protect them if captured). We also hung a number of German Spies. But we also had people who weren't interned who served.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 08 Jun 17 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What's the odds on an attack on a polling station today while there is all this worthy discussion of their human rights?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 08 Jun 17 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think it was more on their political allegiances, but we did certainly intern some people who were German or had close German ties, along with members of the British Union of Fascists. Its not worthy that we didn't just intern people on the basis of having been born in Germany (in fact we also accepted a s**t load of Germany Jewish refugees, who served in the military and were issued false passports and ID to protect them if captured). We also hung a number of German Spies. But we also had people who weren't interned who served. Pretty much all non-Jewish German citizens were interned (and some Jewish ones too) as were Italians and Japanese. The Isle of Man was a popular destination for their extended holiday. They were allowed pretty free movement over a wide-ish area although there was, of course, a military presence as well. The only problem I can see with internment on this occasion is where we'd actually put them but I fully support its introduction.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 17 4.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Pretty much all non-Jewish German citizens were interned (and some Jewish ones too) as were Italians and Japanese. The Isle of Man was a popular destination for their extended holiday. They were allowed pretty free movement over a wide-ish area although there was, of course, a military presence as well. The only problem I can see with internment on this occasion is where we'd actually put them but I fully support its introduction. An a mile of difference compared to the internment used in Ireland. Not a great experience, but one that wasn't actually cruel or unusual, and was only for the duration of the war. But yes, where do you put 2000 suspects in the modern UK.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Jun 17 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It wasn't fair but it was effective. In war the latter is more important than the former. I'm not sure it was so unfair either, although arguably the confines of Mosley and his wife (Diana) were pretty grim, as they were held separately in prison for a long portion of the war.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.