lucky

[Paddy78]

but this seems like a convenient excuse for people to peddle their anti Mulsim agenda.

 

 

I think we can agree on the with regards to the "Get them all out" comment.

[Jay84]

Something like this is always going to bring emotions to the surface. I have children and feel quite jaded that this could happen at the Little Mix concert in November. However, I know its extremists and not all Muslims.

 

 

To get a little back on topic, I'm glad TT didn't get caught up in it, and I hope all those that can be, are reunited with there loved ones asap

[Olly350z]

So ok, Ill ask this question to you all, the senior members of this forum. At 25 Im at the lower end of the age demographic on here, which personally I like as it always means there's knowledge to be passed down, the whole been there, done that cliché saying comes to mind

 

Did you, when you were my age feel as despondent with how things are / were? Is it a generational thing that we've all gone through, and will go through? Or is it getting worse as the years go by?

 

There are many many aspects that I feel in regards to the election, the events in Manchester, last month at Westminster and more that make me feel "Whats the point, we're damned if we do and damned if we dont"

 

As said, not inciting political debate or anything, just genuinely interested. I dont have any family to discuss this with

[Ekona]

At 37 I'm totally down with the kids too. Definitely not old. Nope.

 

But no, I would say that outlook is down to the person, rather than a generational thing or even a 20s/30s/40s/whatever thing. In general, I've a very positive outlook on life (although I may not choose to share it with the internet!), and very rarely do I ever look at world events and be remotely bothered by them. I'm far more annoyed if I drop the last Jaffa Cake on the floor than I am by a million starving kids in Africa, for example. I'll make the best of whatever events the world conspires to give me.

[Jay84]

I'm 33 and kinda get where you're coming from, when so many sh***y things happen at one time its easy to feel like it. But these things have been happening for decades (centuries maybe), and I do think that slowly the world is getting better. I don't blame politics as such as we can in theory vote out who we don't want in. I am massively atheist though, and religion makes me angry. The only thing I hate more than religion is being preached at, so i'll never try to impose my beliefs (or lack of) on others, and am happy for people to have beliefs if it doesn't harm people in the mean time.

 

 

Oh and jaffa cake dropping is a heinous crime not to be made light of

[Jetpilot]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/manchester-terror-attack-everything-know-far/

 

So as i thought, Police know the identity of the attacker, so avoidable if we just get tough imho.

 

We can all sit on hear on our moral high grounds (myself included), but just how do you justify to any of the families who lost someone, we knew who it was, but didnt have the powers to do anything about it, whatever doing anything about it might or might not include.

[coldel]

Nope as above its a personal thing. Difference is now you have the internet and unlimited information (true or otherwise) telling you the world is terrible. In the last century we had two world wars, atomic detonations over civilian populous, millions in genocide in Africa and southern Europe, the IRA where over the course of 30 years some 700 civilians and something like 650 armed forces personnel were killed - many more not listed. To me it feels like there are many fewer 'lunatics' if you like out there who can have macro effects on the world, I think the world is generally a bit more sensible, and as far as voting - if you do not vote, you do not count.

[coldel]

http://www.telegraph...thing-know-far/

 

So as i thought, Police know the identity of the attacker, so avoidable if we just get tough imho.

 

We can all sit on hear on our moral high grounds (myself included), but just how do you justify to any of the families who lost someone, we knew who it was, but didnt have the powers to do anything about it, whatever doing anything about it might or might not include.

 

On average counter terrorism make one arrest a day, there are millions of people in the UK 'known to police' due to their criminal records. There is nothing in that article that says the police knew him as a very likely terrorist and you are jumping to conclusions based on a newspaper desperately printing anything that will get itself readership than printing anything meaningful.

 

If we go completely knee jerk here and extend our already very heavy counter-terrorist laws (as I say already some of the toughest in the world) and say ok, here's 200,000 islamic people who we think might commit terror offences because they googled 'how to make a bomb' and go to a mosque that was once frequented by a hate preacher - lets ship em out (where?) based on a guess they might do something. You couldn't give that sort of golden propaganda to IS to recruit and commit more atrocities any easier if you handed it to them on a silver platter.

 

There is no high horse here, its a sad sad day and being the father of a 5 year old boy I cannot even imagine what families are going through. However the response is not to just 'kick em out' whatever that means - it is this sort of response that is the ultimate goal of IS.

[Ekona]

http://www.telegraph...thing-know-far/

 

So as i thought, Police know the identity of the attacker, so avoidable if we just get tough imho.

Define get tough?

 

Let's assume the police knew about this guy. Let's assume they can see his internet search history and he's been looking at ISIS sites, and chatting with ISIS mates about how the West is evil and someone should teach them a lesson. At that point, however much we may like it, he's done absolutely nothing wrong and tbh I wouldn't want to be in a country that arrested someone in that stage. Now when he starts buying bomb parts it's different, he's committed a crime and can (and should) be arrested.

 

It's a slippery slope if you start down the road as the Thought Police. Where do you stop? Should I be arrested and detained if I say I'd like to punch Katie Hopkins in the face? Or how about if I say I hate all pikies? The line is a careful one, and we should be wary of stepping over it and becoming what we despise.

[Jetpilot]

jumping to conclusions based on a newspaper desperately printing anything that will get itself readership than printing anything meaningful.

 

Ni, i am jumping to conclusions on past history of recent terror attacks where all but a select few are known to the intelligence community through either prior prison terms, travelling to training camps etc etc

 

The question i am asking is, would you want a safer country for you're 5 year old, there are no caveats, its a yes or no answer and as a parent i would be stunned to think you wouldnt.

 

http://www.telegraph...thing-know-far/

 

So as i thought, Police know the identity of the attacker, so avoidable if we just get tough imho.

Define get tough?

 

Let's assume the police knew about this guy. Let's assume they can see his internet search history and he's been looking at ISIS sites, and chatting with ISIS mates about how the West is evil and someone should teach them a lesson. At that point, however much we may like it, he's done absolutely nothing wrong and tbh I wouldn't want to be in a country that arrested someone in that stage. Now when he starts buying bomb parts it's different, he's committed a crime and can (and should) be arrested.

 

It's a slippery slope if you start down the road as the Thought Police. Where do you stop? Should I be arrested and detained if I say I'd like to punch Katie Hopkins in the face? Or how about if I say I hate all pikies? The line is a careful one, and we should be wary of stepping over it and becoming what we despise.

 

We all know our boundaries in life and if we cross them, we get punished, if we exceed the speed limit by a certain amount, we get banned, so most of us dont because we dont want to get banned, so if you knew looking at how to make a dirty bomb on the dark web or otherwise carried a severe punishment (whatever that might be), how many would do it? How many would travel to training grounds if they knew they would have their passport revoked? saying you would like to punch Katie Hopkins or hating all pikies is nothing like researching how to make a bomb ffs or going off to train to kill people.

[Ekona]

It's illegal to go off to train to kill people, and people have been arrested and charged (and taken out by drone) for that.

 

Thousands of people speed each day, despite knowing the laws. Making it illegal to look at bomb-making on the internet won't change people looking for it, they'll just go underground to the dark net and it'll be hidden. Would you be happy with the government tracking every single part of your life? I'm not exactly a tinfoil hat guy, and in general I'm very much of the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear mindset, but even I baulk at the thought of The Man knowing every single thing about my life all the time. That's ultimately what you're advocating for.

[Jetpilot]

Yes and they are bought to justice for speeding, i am sure you creep over the limit occasionally, so lets say any speeding offence resulted in a year or 2 or 3 prison sentence, would you still stray, forget the morals of it, i bet you wouldnt?

 

The dark net isnt hidden mate (thats just hype), your every move is monitored from ip address's no matter what web you look at, so there are certain key words that will flag, but i disagree, if the penalty was more severe i genuinely dont think people would look unless they were deadly serious, hence you have sorted the wheat from the chaff.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Jetpilot

[Jay84]

These are people that die in the process, what can we do to them they're not doing to themselves already? An IP address is easy enough to hide, and info can be transported in more ways than the WWW. The more you scrutinise they better at hiding they become. Preventative action needs to be taken in a way that doesn't use the big tarring brush, or result in people being killed on the subway for having a tan and a rucksack.

Hong Kong is as culturally divers as us and they don't have this trouble.

[Ekona]

@JP: So you'd be happy for everyone to have everything monitored all the time?

 

 

Also, this link may make for interesting reading for some not aware of why mass arrest and internment doesn't really work. Not aimed at you JP, I suspect you're aware of stuff like this.

[Jetpilot]

We are monitored all the time dude, i have a friend who makes a very good living from cyber security, stuff he has told me is positively scary, Keep typing in the wrong words and see how quickly you get a visit, dark web or not, hidden ip or not There is a reason why most of these terrorists are known.

[Aashenfox]

Fighting an enemy that is not afraid of death has always historically been a difficult proposition. As is repeatedly said, the focus needs to be on the few who radicalise the many weak minds.

[Exec]

You guys are right, there isn't a lot that can be done, politics won't fix any of this. This is mostly a home grown threat. Closing the borders won't get rid of the radicals breeding readily within. Kind of like a virus or infection within your body.

[88 Zed]

In my opinion we will never stop it compleatly. There simply isn't enough resources to monitor who is being brainwashed and where.

Even if we could there will always be people who will hate the UK or the west in general because we are involved in bombing other country's.

Why do we get involved in other country's? Because war is a billion pound business.

 

[Zeezeebaba]

Killing an ideology however twisted is a fruitless task. Stopping the disillusioned from becoming radicalised is also very difficult in this age of global communication.

However over time things will improve but the unknown is always just around the corner. Our intelligence services do a sterling job and it would probably surprise you just how many possible incidents are avoided.

With a net so wide it's inevitable someone's going to slip through from time to time.

The global response to such incidents proves there is no tolerance for such dispicable acts of murder.

 

[Stutopia]

Perhaps, in about another 30 years or so, we'll figure out you can't murder people and not expect them to retaliate. It took us longer than that with the IRA, hopefully we learned something, but I doubt it. Weirdly blowing them up more just seems to make them madder. No amount of checking people's browser history or rounding up thought criminals is going to change that.

 

Using an atrocity as an excuse to start attacking swathes of people indiscriminately is the kind of mindless response that got us here in the first place.

 

Prior to The Modern Crusades under Blair and Bush (another brilliant expression of the "I'm angry, who can we kill? policy) did ISIS even exist? What bombings had occurred in the U.K. pre 9/11?

[Zeezeebaba]

There's always someone getting rich from the misery of others.

[Ekona]

Prior to The Modern Crusades under Blair and Bush (another brilliant expression of the "I'm angry, who can we kill? policy) did ISIS even exist? What bombings had occurred in the U.K. pre 9/11?

None, at least none Islamic-extremist related that myself or Wiki can see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain There's a few Iranian-related ones, but that's as close as I can see.

 

Is IS not a bit different though? I mean, I can totally see your point over non-interference, but I think we can all agree that IS is a Bad Thing Indeed with no reasonable aims. Unlike the IRA, or even the Israel/Palestine situation, they're not interested in a political goal or taking their land back: They just want to see us wiped out completely. Sitting down with them and agreeing concessions is simply not an option, so what's left? Either sit back and do nothing and watch them murder innocent people in a foreign land, or use military force to wipe them out as best you can (accepting you'll never get 100%)? Tbh neither answer is particularly palatable in my eyes, but is there an alternative I've missed?

[Jetpilot]

A fair few references to the IRA and I suppose as thats the most similar threat we have had on our shores so I understand that, but they are worlds apart, the IRA left coded warnings for their bombs, their goals were not the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, to me there is a vast difference and to simply say, nothing we can do, havent we learned etc is just staggering.

[Stutopia]

Prior to The Modern Crusades under Blair and Bush (another brilliant exp<b></b>ression of the "I'm angry, who can we kill? policy) did ISIS even exist? What bombings had occurred in the U.K. pre 9/11?

None, at least none Islamic-extremist related that myself or Wiki can see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain There's a few Iranian-related ones, but that's as close as I can see.

 

Is IS not a bit different though? I mean, I can totally see your point over non-interference, but I think we can all agree that IS is a Bad Thing Indeed with no reasonable aims. Unlike the IRA, or even the Israel/Palestine situation, they're not interested in a political goal or taking their land back: They just want to see us wiped out completely. Sitting down with them and agreeing concessions is simply not an option, so what's left? Either sit back and do nothing and watch them murder innocent people in a foreign land, or use military force to wipe them out as best you can (accepting you'll never get 100%)? Tbh neither answer is particularly palatable in my eyes, but is there an alternative I've missed?

 

Unquestionably they're a disaster, but let us not pretend we go around sorting out messes where people are dying, because it's the right thing to do. We let Russia invade two countries of late, we leave the North Koreans to allow thousands to starve, we just did a huge arms deal with the Saudis (anyone remember where Osama was from?) who perpetuate the crisis in Yemen, there's Israel and Palestine - none of these seem to bother us enough to go over and 'sort it out'.

 

When you look at the way many Western countries have formed, there's been civil wars and people killing one another, it's bloody and horrible, eventually someone won. Some places ceased to exist. They didn't have a democracy parcel air dropped in from NATO strapped to a bomb. People need to sort it out for themselves.

 

If these lunatics were the type of organisation where there was a definite head we could cut off (like Hitler and Geoballs and Georing and Bormann) it'd be worth trying to get to them and kill them. But It's not, the factions are independent, the only way to "kill" it is for the young men they attract to stop looking to become recruits. Locking people up and bombing them simply doesn't do that, in fact it just breads more. Has anything stopped since they killed Bin Laden?

[Adrian@TORQEN]

We are monitored all the time dude, i have a friend who makes a very good living from cyber security, stuff he has told me is positively scary, Keep typing in the wrong words and see how quickly you get a visit, dark web or not, hidden ip or not There is a reason why most of these terrorists are known.

 

Your friend is feeding you a lot of rubbish. There are lots of ways to stay well hidden on internet, including dark web: VPN, encrypted traffic etc.