Terrorism - the latest attack

“…I don’t think we should start locking people up with no questions asked…”

I think it depends. If we decided to go the black ops route, then these individuals would just start getting very “unlucky”. They would get rare deadly infections, they would be poisoned in freak industrial accidents, they would accidentally electrocute themselves in the bathtub, and so on…

If we go the official route then, yes, they should have some kind of formal process with legal representation.

Maybe we could give them an off-shore military tribunal - kind like the US approach post 9/11?

Or maybe we could set up a special Civilian Court with restricted hearings and fast track procedures?

Either way, the people need to be strong at this time. We simply cannot afford to give kid glove treatment to fanatics who want to target and kill our children, IMO.

True. Have no mercy to terrorists, but keep it lawful.

I should have been clearer but by “mingling with them” I don’t mean asking them what the time is or chatting with them at random but mingling with them knowing and ignoring the fact that they are hateful extremists. These people have a tendency to contaminate the minds of weak, insecure people and I think we should do something about that.

Maybe the “with no questions asked” part was a bit extreme but I stand by my opinion that we should start making the lives of people in their social circles miserable to drive people away from them.

If I were in charge I think I would have the secret services and/or police identify the following:

1.) The most dangerous fanatics - those known to be top ringleaders and planners, people known to have extensive combat experience with ISIS, people with dangerous specialist skills such as bomb-making, or weaponising chemicals, etc.

These would be clinically neutralised by black ops teams :slight_smile:

2.) Serious sympathisers of ISIS - people with a track record of financing, producing or spreading ISIS propaganda and ideology, or people with significant potential to plan or carry out violent acts, based on past or current behaviour. These would be taken off the streets. Their cases would be fairly reviewed by a tribunal of some kind, and if the case were upheld they would be detained in an isolated special facility - if necessary for a very long time.

3.) Fringe followers - people who have quite frequently dipped into the same pool as group 2, but who don’t give immediate grave cause for alarm. These would be covertly monitored as appropriate, and could be upgraded to group 2 at any time.

Of course there would be some interesting judgement calls to be made by someone or other. Personally I would set the bar quite low for inclusion in group 2. Oh yes :slight_smile:

i disagree if you want to fight for a terrorist group die with them they should all be stripped of their citizenship of any country they are from people with out a country this is a big topic where i live many young muslims have gone to fight in syria nobody wants them back here

“These would be clinically neutralised by black ops teams :-)”
“Their cases would be fairly reviewed by a tribunal of some kind, and if the case were upheld they would be detained in an isolated special facility - if necessary for a very long time.”

Your comments remind me of “Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse”.

“During the war in Iraq that began in March 2003, personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a series of human rights violations against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These violations included physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy, and murder. The abuses came to widespread public attention with the publication of photographs of the abuse by CBS News in April 2004. The incidents received widespread condemnation both within the United States and abroad, although the soldiers received support from some conservative media within the United States.”–Wikipedia

If there had not been the war in Iraq, “Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse” would not have happened. If CBS News had not reported the case, most of us would not noticed it.

If there had not been the war in Iraq, …

“Either way, the people need to be strong at this time. We simply cannot afford to give kid glove treatment to fanatics who want to target and kill our children, IMO.”

I hope that being “strong” does not mean such torture and abuse as commited by personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

“These would be clinically neutralised by black ops teams :-)”

What does the emoticon “:-)” mean? Joking?

Are you smiling?

“Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the U.S. and U.K., he [Tony Blair] was forcefully and repeatedly warned by Britain’s intelligence services that it would lead to exactly this type of terrorist attack — and he concealed these warnings from the British people, instead claiming the war would reduce the risk of terrorism.”
‪British intelligence warned Tony Blair of Manchester-like terrorism if the West invaded Iraq British Intelligence Warned Tony Blair of Manchester-Like Terrorism if the West Invaded Iraq - The Intercept by @tinyrevolution‬

The lesson is “the West” should not have invaded Iraq in 2003. The war, in the first 3-4 years of which an estimated 151,000 to 600,000 or more Iraqis were killed, did not reduce the risk of terrorism. I tend to consider Tony Blair trustworthy, but he was wrong in helping George W. Bush to begin the war in the Middle East.


In the Iran–Iraq War, which lasted from 22 September 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, to August 1988, “the United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided support for Iraq, while Iran was largely isolated”(Wikipedia).

It appears that the dictator in Iraq, who was executed after the Iraq war, used to be a “close friend” of the US leaders’ during the 1980s. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, overthrew him, and finally excecuted him. Have these things helped the U.S. fight what George W. Bush called “war on terror”?

@Yutaka:
“…Your comments remind me of “Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse”…”

Well, well. Now there’s a surprise…

I have not, of course, suggested that anybody be tortured or detained in degrading conditions.

And I haven’t suggested that they should be subjected to brutal slave labour building jungle railways - although the idea is, to be sure, not entirely without attractions…


“…What does the emoticon “:-)” mean? Joking?..”

Who knows, Yutaka babe? There might be a pale flickering beam of black humour in there somewhere?

Or it might just mean that I rather enjoy the thought of an ISIS bomb maker completing a good ole evening’s worth of Jihadery down in the workshop, little knowing that the cup o’ Joe that he is going to relax with is a CIA special brew… (Schadenfreude is the word for that, is it not?)

Epic Douglas Murray

Trump: ‘Had we taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS’ @CNNPolitics http://cnn.it/2k5cM1L

"Critics have said that taking Iraq’s oil would have been stealing from civilians and thus a war crime, a violation of international law. "
(Ibid.)

Why are you as happy to use that smiley? Are you really happy, Prince of Happiness?

By the way, what does “babe” mean in your English vocabulary? Is it your favorite word?

Your thoughts, babe?

???

Could you tell me the title of the video?

“…Could you tell me the title of the video?..”

No, that would be superfluous, babe.

:slight_smile:

What does “clinical neutralization” in your comment mean, Prince of Happiness? To put it bluntly, why are you enjoying yourself using this sort of expressions?

I wonder if Trump’s strategy of arming the Wahhabi terror state of Saudi Arabia with 100 Billion in arms, restarting the program to fund radical islamic rebels in Syria to fight Assad, and ramping up drone strikes by 430% since taking office… (including his first raid where 9 civilian children were killed)… I wonder if all this is a good idea??

“The raid in Yemen that cost Owens his life also killed 30 other people, including ‘many civilians,’ at least nine of whom were children. None of them were mentioned by Trump in last night’s speech, let alone honored with applause and the presence of grieving relatives. That’s because they were Yemenis, not Americans; therefore, their deaths, and lives, must be ignored (the only exception was some fleeting media mention of the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, but only because she was a U.S. citizen and because of the irony that Obama killed her 16-year-old American brother with a drone strike).”

Prinz-Brexit and all other UK’ers. I want your thoughts on this video… because I really have no idea how we are going to fix this problem in the UK. LBC maajid nawaz - terrorism in our midst - YouTube