lucky

[Jay84]

I agree with Ekona, rounding up every person who has Googled ISIS is a no go and would probably incite even more radicalisation.

 

I didnt say that at all, lets be realistic about what the security services deem a terror threat and i am sure that doesnt include isis popping up in a google search The security services know who these people are in most cases with very good reason.

But how would you define who is and isn't a threat? Serious question, not being flippant on this. Genuinely curious to know what you'd define as a terror threat.

This. This is what I was trying to get across at the top of this page (knowing my luck it'll go onto page 6 now). Obviously we all want these things to stop, but how you differentiate between a real threat and a non. How many others with the same threat level as the Manchester guy exist that will never actually do it?

 

Whats that Tom Cruise film where they get arrested before the crimes take place because of time travel or something. We need that.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Jay84

[Jetpilot]

I thought you werent being flippant, who cares how i or they define it or my opinion, i trust what their definitions and boundaries are seeing as most of these "people" are known to them, so their definitions/boundaries seem fine, whatever they might be

[coldel]

I agree with Ekona, rounding up every person who has Googled ISIS is a no go and would probably incite even more radicalisation.

 

I didnt say that at all, lets be realistic about what the security services deem a terror threat and i am sure that doesnt include isis popping up in a google search The security services know who these people are in most cases with very good reason.

But how would you define who is and isn't a threat? Serious question, not being flippant on this. Genuinely curious to know what you'd define as a terror threat.

This. This is what I was trying to get across at the top of this page (knowing my luck it'll go onto page 6 now). Obviously we all want these things to stop, but how you differentiate between a real threat and a non. How many others with the same threat level as the Manchester guy exist that will never actually do it?

 

Whats that Tom Cruise film where they get arrested before the crimes take place because of time travel or something. We need that.

 

Minority Report

[Jetpilot]

I agree with Ekona, rounding up every person who has Googled ISIS is a no go and would probably incite even more radicalisation.

 

I didnt say that at all, lets be realistic about what the security services deem a terror threat and i am sure that doesnt include isis popping up in a google search The security services know who these people are in most cases with very good reason.

But how would you define who is and isn't a threat? Serious question, not being flippant on this. Genuinely curious to know what you'd define as a terror threat.

This. This is what I was trying to get across at the top of this page (knowing my luck it'll go onto page 6 now). Obviously we all want these things to stop, but how you differentiate between a real threat and a non. How many others with the same threat level as the Manchester guy exist that will never actually do it?

 

Whats that Tom Cruise film where they get arrested before the crimes take place because of time travel or something. We need that.

 

Minority Report

 

Which didnt work in the end, haha, pre cognitive, there was also another film where they travelled back in time, sent the perp to the future and they were killed, Looper!

[Jay84]

Minority Report was the one I was thinking off, but yeah Looper too. Yeah it didn't turn out so well for Mr Cruise...or Willis I guess.

[Ekona]

I thought you werent being flippant, who cares how i or they define it or my opinion, i trust what their definitions and boundaries are seeing as most of these "people" are known to them, so their definitions/boundaries seem fine, whatever they might be

Okay, let me ask a different question then: How do you think the current system the security services use should change? I.e. instead of monitor up until the point a crime is committed and then act, what should our they do instead? At what point should they act?

[Jay84]

I know the scale is different, but when I was a retail store manager for a large food chain, we weren't allowed to stop shop lifters until they'd left the building with the goods unpaid for, because up until that point they may have decided to pay, and they were just keeping they vodka warm under their coat until that point

[Zeezeebaba]

I agree with Ekona, rounding up every person who has Googled ISIS is a no go and would probably incite even more radicalisation.

 

I didnt say that at all, lets be realistic about what the security services deem a terror threat and i am sure that doesnt include isis popping up in a google search The security services know who these people are in most cases with very good reason.

 

I know I work in that field,I was merely agreeing with Ekona. Apologies I hadn't read your comments.

 

Suspects are graded, it's like a points system based on activities recently or historically, known associates, movements etc.

This includes virtual targets and identity tracking with markers that flag users online.

Grading suspects serves a number of purposes, the most obvious is the allocation of resources to where it's needed most, running through to leaving live markers to lead to bigger fish.

Attempting to identify a sleeper currently has a very good success rate, identifying when a sleeper becomes active is rarely predictable and the window of opportunity is usually small to prevent them causing harm.

 

 

[Jetpilot]

I am reading this morning that Mi5 have opened enquiries into missed warnings over this incident, by all accounts claims his interest in being a potential terrorist killer were repeatedly reported to the authorities. There is a lot more about the individual should anyone care to read, recently been to Libya where he "may" have received terrorist training, teachers and religious figures who knew him raised concerns about his extremist views on multiple occasions over several years, to highlight a couple.

 

So there is a failing, whether thats actual intel or the powers to act, which raises questions of what will become of the 14 other people arrested belived to be in his network.

[Exec]

He didn't look the brightest from the pictures released. Probably an easy and maleable asset for the extremists to utilise. Rubber dinghy rapids, bro.

[TT350]

He didn't look the brightest from the pictures released. Probably an easy and maleable asset for the extremists to utilise. Rubber dinghy rapids, bro.

 

Lol going to a high school in Rochdale there were loads of "rubber dinghy rapids" types. The quiet ones, that wore bits of traditional garments and walked around school with a Koran tucked under their arms and spoke eloquently were the ones to watch out for. Didn't have the vocabulary back then to go toe to toe.

 

Lol there was one guy called Muruwat and he was a total replica of Waj! Was so funny because he had ridiculous answers in class that he would say with total conviction.

 

I can't remember the topic but I can remember him shout out "Be's a electronical ROBOCOP innit sir!!"

 

Lol. We all got along in our own awkward little way. All this is pre 9/11 and there wasn't as much tension.

[Exec]

These extremist tutors must really have a persuasive skill set, if they can convince somebody to commit such atrocities. Imagine if they set their motives on selling PPI, or cars. They would be unstoppable.

 

Either that or they met the equivalent of 'Waj'. Did you see his fathers interview with the reporters following the incident? It was as if he wasn't bothered in the slightest his son had died.

 

[Jetpilot]

They prey on the weak looking to belong to something and have a purpose to their existence, i would imagine they are very adept at identifying such people.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Talking about extremists, I was listening to Maajid Nawaz on Saturday on LBC while driving:

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-nawaz-refuses-to-praise-didsbury-mosque/

 

 

[coldel]

They prey on the weak looking to belong to something and have a purpose to their existence, i would imagine they are very adept at identifying such people.

 

Exactly this. They find people at a low point and desperately in need of purpose. Fill their heads with an idea of being important and wonderful religious afterlife and it's job done you have a pawn to use as a terrorist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TT350]

The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration.

 

 

[Stutopia]

The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration.

 

Just so we know.

What are our values?

What are theirs?

[Strudul]

The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration.

 

Just so we know.

What are our values?

What are theirs?

 

Our definition of extremism is “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

[TT350]

Thanks Strudul. Exactly what's said in that link.

 

"They" consider us hedonistic, evil, gregarious. "Their" values are in complete opposition to ours. "They" want us to bow to Sharia law.

 

The peace loving Muslims need to find an equilibrium with us. Not infiltrate and take us by force from within. We need to see this from the majority of them to know and believe that they dont all secretly want us to bow to them. They're so alien to us and such an enclave within our society and very shut off. People naturally fear what they don't know, and when they keep hurting us despite being born and raised here, it really becomes hard to just keep your heart and mind open. I want there to be more intolerance from within their own community towards these fanatics. They need to unite with us and not see us as their opposite and enemy. Modern day Muslims really have a chance now to bring their religion into the 21st century and allow for other cultures and faiths and not just see them as something to be stamped out under Allah's will.

[coldel]

Just going to throw this out there, as a debating point rather than any personal strongly held belief, but we are hardly ones to preach about peace loving? The west have actively illegally occupied a number of countries over the last couple of decades, they have (clearly without intent usually because the opposition deliberately place civilians in military target sites) killed civilians and children with military strikes etc. I wonder if the west could take a long hard look at what they do and how they are perceived before expecting 1/3rd of the populous of the planet to behave in a certain way? When will the west change tact and stop stamping their will on other countries?

 

(note just putting this out there as a debating point I am not religious!)

[Aashenfox]

I was going to say that, but didn't want to annoy anybody. The truth is we're reaping what we sowed. Obviously I'm not saying that we made our bed so we should lie in it, but is their reaction disproportionate? Yes, in our view, but probably not in theirs. Unfortunately, there were too many excuses to hate the west, we made it SOOOO easy for the propagandists to spread hate and radicalise entire cities and sects by our own greedy and inconsiderate actions. We saw it coming and we didn't do anything about it and now it's too late. It;s not like we can call a truce with a religion.

 

However...Del, we live in the free-est era of man. You can take your car down to parliament square and run people over willy nilly if you want to. You think that's going to last forever? No fricking WAY. Almost all the problems of the world are to do with too much choice and too many unquestioned rights. The solution IS to make human ideology more 'common' amongst the people. Doesn't really matter which one, islam or atheism or whatever, the problem is people thinking not only that it's cool to be 'extreme' and 'different', when what's needed to progress and have peace, is common ground.

 

Though as I've mentioned before, to try to live in peace is folly, we are NOT a peaceful animal. We need death and plenty of it to keep our numbers down, and we need hardship aplenty to give us a reason to unite. This peaceful easy life is making our personalities rot with nothing to fight for or believe in, our leaders are mere cardboard cutouts, far removed from the commoners. To deny our nature and pretend to be someone (or something) we're not, will have explosive consequences one day.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Aashenfox

[Jetpilot]

It is not just the west Isis are targeting though, they are targeting anyone and everyone who doesnt agree with their beliefs and i mean anyone of any religion, just look at Syria, but i absolutely agree, because we are able to act and stand up to them, we are obvious targets and probably the worst rendition of how they believe you should be, but there is no way you can lay the foot of blame at the west.

 

However, we have opened our doors to pretty much anyone for the chance of a better life and not live in terror that you may be beheaded for not conforming, yet this small minority are happy to live in this awful western world and enjoy all the benefits of it, but yet they plot against us.

 

I am not condoning our actions or the wars we have fought by the way, but Isis doesnt exist because the of the West.

[Stutopia]

The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration.

 

Just so we know.

What are our values?

What are theirs?

 

Our definition of extremism is “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

 

Thanks Strudul, but that's not what it says.

 

What it says is that "the real, peaceful muslims" need to choose between our values or theirs. If we say ours are "democracy, the rule of law etc" and then what does that leave for "the real, peaceful muslims" to choose?

 

Or have they already chosen extremism by being Muslim?

 

The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..."

[coldel]

ISIS has always existed but in such a minority it didn't really impact the world globally, by the west removing barriers to their spread such as the incumbent in Iraq they were able to seize huge swaths of land that otherwise would not have been available. The west has inadvertently helped the spread of ISIS in that respect rather than being target because of standing up to them, if you look through the recent history not long ago the west was actively arming them.

[Strudul]

The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration.

 

Just so we know.

What are our values?

What are theirs?

 

Our definition of extremism is “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

 

Thanks Strudul, but that's not what it says.

 

What it says is that "the real, peaceful muslims" need to choose between our values or theirs. If we say ours are "democracy, the rule of law etc" and then what does that leave for "the real, peaceful muslims" to choose?

 

Or have they already chosen extremism by being Muslim?

 

The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..."

 

Que?

Islam is entirely compatible with British values and our national way of life, while Islamist extremism is not – and we must be uncompromising in our response to it.