By applying them to terrorists you're taking them from their victims.Originally Posted by Yevrah
By applying them to terrorists you're taking them from their victims.
Read about the Russian tactics in combating Islamic extremism. Apparently a decade ago they said fuck it and decided to go after the attackers families in Chechnya. It was declared that the family of any terrorist would be arrested and jailed, since it was the families responsibility to prevent members of their family from carrying out attacks. Thousands of people went missing as families were rounded up.
End result? The rebel movement losing all of its leadership, and "activity" (whatever the fuck that means) down 90% over a 10 year period.
Start locking up their mums and May might not have to take away our internet porn and whatnot.
And by turning up and turfing these people out/arresting them before they've committed a crime all you're doing is ensuring that Muslims feel like they have no place in this society, which in turn makes them more sympathetic of these scumbags/bombing places themselves.
I don't like to advocate Godwin's Law here but you have to take any sentence you would say about Muslims, change the word Muslim to Jew and ask yourself 'Do I sound like a fucking Nazi'?
Giggles on Muslims is always good value.
As for going for their family, that's exactly what Trump wanted to do.
Had the Jews undertaken a deliberate campaign to blow up and stab Germans on their streets or at events?
I'm not talking about locking them all up. I'm talking about anyone who has been up to enough to be under suspicion, there's thousands apparently. Nip them in the bud before they can act.
Of course Trump did, Vlad probably showed him the stats on how successful it was.
Good point.
There's no taking or giving. You either decide you want to abide by human rights or you don't. If you decide you do, then you need to apply them to everyone. The clue's in the name.
They're not applying them to the victims though, so they are choosing.
'They' are not in a position of power and nor do they claim to give a shit about human rights, we should and we do.
That said, and as I said in the last thread, internment will clearly happen if this keeps up.
Fighting words from May. If she means what she says, looks like they've read Yevrah's post and are looking to change the strategy now.
Does it matter? You're advocating taking a section of society and locking them up when they haven't committed a crime. If you can't see what's wrong with that then I'm not sure what to tell you.
It's very basic law. People are treated as law-abiding citizens until such time as they commit a crime, none of this 'you've been on surveilance, therefore we're going to lock you up before you commit a crime'
I never said a thing about locking up a section of society. I said to lock up anyone who is already earmarked by the authorities as a threat. This list of thousands we keep hearing about.
Those conversations could be embarrassing, couldn't they?
Nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.
The Wests biggest crime is making that backward nation of goat fuckers and woman stoners relevant on the world stage.
Looking back, we should have never used oil for things.
I can't think what else she could have meant that would be embarrassing other than actually addressing that.
The funding for those Wahhabi mosques needs to be cut and the mosques themselves bulldozed to the ground.
I've seen a few people sharing that as if not publishing an unfinished report (which doesn't mean it won't still be used to inform policy when it is finished) is really damning. Theresa May probably signed it off, forgot about it, and now oh where is it and you say Jeremy Corbyn supports terrorists just because he does?!
Nah, should have just Empired it.
Then they would all live here.
As good Christians.
Worse, you're being a lying cunt.
The 1987 incident that you refer to was in Gibraltar, where the IRA were planning an attack on the British military, not random civilians. Three IRA members, entirely unarmed, were shot dead (rather than arrested) as per the illegal "shoot to kill" policy that had been adopted at the time. So it's not remotely similar, and your attempting to draw a parallel with the event in London to score political points is pathetic.
Earlier last night: https://www.theguardian.com/football...c-firecrackers
I was there, and thought it seems a bit lol now it was genuinely terrifying. I spent about thirty minutes thinking there was an ongoing attack, with no clue where my friend was. Then I spent the whole night in the hospital waiting room, surrounded by crippled guys in Juventus shirts. It was only today that I realized I still had tiny pieces of glass embedded in my knee so I got those taken out earlier. Really an insane night.
#jft1500
Wouldn't be the first time Juve fans have been caught in a crush.
#SomehowAboutLiverpool
Sssssh, they like to brush that one under the carpet. Tragedy only befalls them.
I'm praying there isn't a terror attack there purely for that very reason.
Don't play your new stuff, Liam, you dickhead. Nobody came for that.
You don't see a tambourine often these days
Noel not bothering confirms my theory that he's the actual wanker one and Liam is really a top, top lad.
I usually have Absolute on in the car and they absolutely bum Noel to death, which leads me to believe you're right.
Seriously poor form doing that at a charity gig.
We should have told Bowie to fuck off when he pulled that shit at the London Olympic ceremony too.
He's not there as Oasis so well within his rights.
What?
Are you positive about anything these days Yev?
He means George Michael doesn't he?
The disinterest in the crowd was palpable.
His voice sounded quite ropey as well. Chris Martin's hilarious interjections distracted from that though. I didn't see all of it. Did Ariana manage to coax Morrissey out for a quick rendition of Panic?
The Sun's headline tomorrow
wut
Ariana did her big hit about being sore after a bumming, so Liam could have at least done Wonderwall.
This is weird/related (?): https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...over-terrorism
It's almost as if the cripplingly simple way that some people want to look at it is wrong.
It's not simple at all.
If you read the article, it explains that they're doing it because of the Muslim Brotherhood, who aren't that extreme as far as things go, but who challenge the rule of the Saudi royals.
The Saudi's have also taken many actions against Al Qaeda and ISIS and execute prisoners for membership (often based on dodgy trials of course) but again that is primarily because they represent a threat to their authority. They're quite happy to spread the Salafist philosophy on which they're basesd and they're also quite happy to fund (or allow their citizens to fund) and utilise those groups abroad, as a check against Iran.
So they use the word "terrorist" in a highly perjorative way, to mean "people we don't like". Much as Bashar al Assad does.
Anything that casts the Qataris as villains is good news in my book, even if it comes from other villains.
Has the point been made that these guys must have been fucking crap to only get seven people? They had a van and there were four(?) of them yet they managed to kill less than 2 each (bush league KDR right there), the idea that these were trained ISIS militants seems somewhat laughable. It smacks of desperation from a handful of complete and utter mongs.
They also picked a fairly crappy time to do it. A weekday morning anytime between 7 and 10 and there are ten times as many people on that bridge.
If Qatar has the balls to go all Iron Bank then this might end up being one of those historic mistakes people write/lol about years down the line.
If it takes a war in Qatar to move the World Cup, so be it.
I love how the bigger Qatar issue is acting alongside Iran rather than the proper dodgy shit they've been knee deep in for years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
