Police rush to London Bridge after reports of van hitting pedestrians

[GuiseppeD]

Hang on, hang on, TM is threatening tougher prison sentences for terrorist offences.  I'm sure the jihadis will be quaking in their boots.  

 

How would tougher prison sentences apply to last nights slaughter exactly?  And Manchester seeing as no one else has been charged in connection so far?

[GuiseppeD]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

True Brits are waking up and the UK will be lost to the Muslim hoards. They will be taught to behave or face the consequences.

But there's nothing on the table and nobody's listening.  Please clarify precisely how this will pan out?  

 

Sorry, but it's all talk, just like our spineless government.

[Morch]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

I am not sure that is correct - as recently as April there was an attack in St Petersburg that killed 15 people, the perpetrator having, allegedly, trained with IS in Syria; the Metrojet flight from Sharm was also, allegedly, downed by an IS bomb. Of course, this could also be a reaction to their general involvement in Syria rather than, specifically, their supplying of arms to despots. 

 

 I am not suggesting that there is a single underlying cause behind these atrocities, and I am not denying that the idea of a death cult mentality exists, but I understand that the majority of suicide bombers tend to be the down at heel, petty criminal types - those with least to lose and who are most likely to be wooed by cleverer men who use negative examples of Western interference in the Muslim world in their efforts to win them over. The general instability that permeates the middle east isn't without a significant degree of Western fomentation. 

 

Yes, yes....it was expected that you'd the recent attacks, was kind hoping you'd skip the deflection. To repeat the the premise - Russia's (and formerly, the USSR) involvement goes way back and much wider that addressed above. Overall, attacks are not on par with those directed at Western targets, nor is there as much overt antagonism expressed.

 

Minimizing the part of perpetrators is another tired deflection. Just some "petty criminal types", weak minded, easily influenced. Sure thing. They are not doing it of their volition. The real culprits are those "wooing" them. And ultimately, it's back to the old excuse of Western fomentation/meddling/imperialism.

 

Russian/Soviet involvement did not meet with the same response, and don't recall a whole lot of Vietnamese terrorists back when the West was up to its evil misdeeds. 

 

[Kwasaki]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Muslim communities are not necessarily harder on that front than others. Nothing inherent which makes them less susceptible to the various practices police and security forces apply when seeking information. 

 

I doubt that, generally speaking, ethnic/immigrant communities are especially proactive "grassing their own" to authorities. Rather it is more up to police/security forces to either form ties or establish relevant contacts and sources.

photo.htm  photo.htm

Edited June 4, 2017 by Kwasaki

[GuiseppeD]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

photo.htm

Can't reach that link.

[Grouse]

17 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

Let's face it, encryption is here to stay.  Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, you're picking an argument with the wrong man. I'm informing you that there are ways to deal with this.... 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, soalbundy said:

No not give up,ISIL must be destroyed but what would you say if 484 Londoners were killed by the army in order to kill 3 or 4 terrorists, fact is it doesn't matter if it happens outside Europe, that doesn't go unnoticed by the fanatical fringe who after all said and done are just murderers looking for a cause.

 

As far as I'm aware, the 484 figure does not relate to a single coalition attack targeting 3-4 terrorists. Rather it is an accumulated figure, representing death toll over time and resulting from multiple attacks. It also fails to mention how many terrorists were killed, and the context (Mosul is a war zone, London isn't).

[GuiseppeD]

Just now, Grouse said:

No, you're picking an argument with the wrong man. I'm informing you that there are ways to deal with this.... 

But you and the government's answers are all talk.  Nothing concrete.  

 

You can't stop encryption as it's here and now.  I already informed you that I'm on a VPN.  

 

How do you propose to stop it?

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

I utterly and completely condemn the scumbug cowardly terrorists who murdered these innocents.

 

My sympathies are entirely with the loved ones of the victims and the police who had to risk their lives confronting the perps.

 

My anger is directed at the individual terrorist slime who committed these atrocities, the warped evil cults such as ISIS and Al Qaeda who may be [in]directly implicated, and the fanatical sect of wahhabism practised by Saudi Arabia which inspired and possibly financed ISIS and Al Qaeda, which country Trump last week did $350 billions of business with having previously accused it of being behind 911 and which is conveniently omitted from his Muslim exclusion ban! Likewise the UK governtment's extensive arms contracts with these dictators.

 

The hypocrisy is astounding as is your attempted whitewash of western governments' hand in creating these terrorist extremists.

Do not for one moment accept the crocodile tears of anybody, anybody who will not under any circumstances use the words 'Islamic Terrorism'  to name that which is and at the same time try a little sideways kick into the long grass with their first priority here which is to associate that terrorism with an equivalence on the Western states. The truth is that some hard left-wing organisations have rubbed shoulders with these guys in their efforts to fight 'imperialism' and here is a key concept take sides. Taking sides is a key element of hard-left groups and no amount of tear-jerking should throw us off the scent. The whole phrase of the hard left-wing taking sides phraseology is 'unconditional, but not uncritical support for (name the organisation). The critical bit is the criticism of individual acts but the unconditional bit here is the refusal to condemn Islamic Terrorism. This is what happens when the hard left descends into its own madness of cult logic and there we have it right above here in a sample of all its glory.

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

But there's nothing on the table and nobody's listening.  Please clarify precisely how this will pan out?  

 

Sorry, but it's all talk, just like our spineless government.

The government now realise, albeit late in the day, that if they are not seen to take robust, draconian action, then We British will deal with it. I have no doubt that appropriate action will now be taken.

[GuiseppeD]

16 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes but not in the way you mean it.

 

True Brits are waking up and the UK will be lost to the Muslim hoards. They will be taught to behave or face the consequences.

Again, you haven't answered the question.  How will jihadis be taught how to behave particularly when they're dead?

[brewsterbudgen]

Do not for one moment accept the crocodile tears of anybody, anybody who will not under any circumstances use the words 'Islamic Terrorism'  to name that which is and at the same time try a little sideways kick into the long grass with their first priority here which is to associate that terrorism with an equivalence on the Western states. The truth is that some hard left-wing organisations have rubbed shoulders with these guys in their efforts to fight 'imperialism' and here is a key concept take sides. Taking sides is a key element of hard-left groups and no amount of tear-jerking should throw us off the scent. The whole phrase of the hard left-wing taking sides phraseology is 'unconditional, but not uncritical support for (name the organisation). The critical bit is the criticism of individual acts but the unconditional bit here is the refusal to condemn Islamic Terrorism. This is what happens when the hard left descends into its own madness of cult logic and there we have it right above here in a sample of all its glory.

Making political points about such an atrocity is inappropriate, shameful and rather pathetic.

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I'm aware, the 484 figure does not relate to a single coalition attack targeting 3-4 terrorists. Rather it is an accumulated figure, representing death toll over time and resulting from multiple attacks. It also fails to mention how many terrorists were killed, and the context (Mosul is a war zone, London isn't).

I'm glad you cleared that up, i thought all those children had been killed needlessly.

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Do not for one moment accept the crocodile tears of anybody, anybody who will not under any circumstances use the words 'Islamic Terrorism'  to name that which is and at the same time try a little sideways kick into the long grass with their first priority here which is to associate that terrorism with an equivalence on the Western states. The truth is that some hard left-wing organisations have rubbed shoulders with these guys in their efforts to fight 'imperialism' and here is a key concept take sides. Taking sides is a key element of hard-left groups and no amount of tear-jerking should throw us off the scent. The whole phrase of the hard left-wing taking sides phraseology is 'unconditional, but not uncritical support for (name the organisation). The critical bit is the criticism of individual acts but the unconditional bit here is the refusal to condemn Islamic Terrorism. This is what happens when the hard left descends into its own madness of cult logic and there we have it right above here in a sample of all its glory.

How are you getting on with that article from Socialist Worker? Still waiting...

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

But you and the government's answers are all talk.  Nothing concrete.  

 

You can't stop encryption as it's here and now.  I already informed you that I'm on a VPN.  

 

How do you propose to stop it?

I don't propose to do anything

 

I'm just informing you that you are incorrect in your assumptions.

 

I don't give a damn what your thoughts on the subject are: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing though....

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Well she doesn't have it in clubs or hearts.

or in No Trumps

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Making political points about such an atrocity is inappropriate, shameful and rather pathetic.

Conspiracy theories ok then?

[RickBradford]

Just now, brewsterbudgen said:

Making political points about such an atrocity is inappropriate, shameful and rather pathetic.

Of course people want to make political points - it's a political issue.

 

If it isn't a political issue, what on earth is it? An opportunity to light candles and create hashtags? Yeah, that works.

 

You may disagree with the political sentiments expressed by the poster above. Then discuss and rebut them, instead of trying to close down debate with meaningless abuse.

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, GuiseppeD said:

Can't reach that link.

Yeah l'm that good with some of this download stuff, it was on facebook.

 

Duterte the Filipino president is asked to go to England when his dealt with ISIS and show the UK gov what to do.   

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because :)

 

1) the security forces get it wrong sometimes (Jean Charles de Menezes?)

 

2) imprisoning innocent muslims is only going to result in more Brit born terrorists.

 

Which is why we need to get out of the EU fast, and introduce radical, fast track laws for internment, revocation of citizenship and deportation. If we have to throw a million people out of the country, so be it.

[In the jungle]

It was bad enough that May's thoughts were vacuous but mixing in a bunch of electioneering at such a time?

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

I'm glad you cleared that up, i thought all those children had been killed needlessly.

 

Say nothing of it. Always willing to correct simplistic, misleading comparisons.

[soalbundy]

19 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

Hang on, hang on, TM is threatening tougher prison sentences for terrorist offences.  I'm sure the jihadis will be quaking in their boots.  

 

How would tougher prison sentences apply to last nights slaughter exactly?  And Manchester seeing as no one else has been charged in connection so far?

correct, a prison sentence is a plus because they were expecting,even hoping, to die during their rampage, neither the death sentence nor longer prison terms are a deterrent. Interment on a cold windy Scottish island for suspected jihadis could save lives. Not politically possible at the moment but I am sure that the French and the Germans would be for it.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

Again, you haven't answered the question.  How will jihadis be taught how to behave particularly when they're dead?

Ah! So now we see your true colours. Yes, the Jihadis will certainly be annihilated 

 

BUT, the Muslim hoards will be taught to behave reasonably. Or leave. I'm a tolerant chap, just don't push it. Do what you want in your own home. That's fine. Just don't shove it in my face or you just might get a reaction. OK?

[Kwasaki]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

No, you're picking an argument with the wrong man. I'm informing you that there are ways to deal with this.... 

But the spineless idiots that rule England won't do anything they will just lose there heads when England not UK as a whole is taken over by large multiplying Muslims population.

IMO it's too late the rot virus is already in place.

[GuiseppeD]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I don't propose to do anything

 

I'm just informing you that you are incorrect in your assumptions.

 

I don't give a damn what your thoughts on the subject are: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing though....

What assumptions?  All your posts are full of vacuum.

 

What are you going to do to stop the terror threat?  You've talked a lot but have nothing to offer just like our emptyheaded government.

 

You can't negotiate with a dead terrorist.  

 

So you're left with a proactive rather than reactive proposal.  What are your proposals?

 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by GuiseppeD

[Morch]

7 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

To physically monitor one person would need 4 police personnel on an 8 hour shift working 3 weeks in 4. To physically monitor 3,000 would probably need up to 15,000 police. That discounts the number of vehicles and any other equipment. Whilst computer monitoring the internet and mobiles would be easier you would still need vast amounts of equipment plus huge storage frames.

 

Unfortunately as you kindly pointed out it is unaffordable.

 

There is no need to "physically" monitor each and everyone of them 24/7. More efficient ways of applying and managing surveillance, even on such scale. But it does make for an impressive budget request. I suspect constraints would be more closely related to legal issues and linguistic/cultural skills.

 

 

 

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Ah! So now we see your true colours. Yes, the Jihadis will certainly be annihilated 

 

BUT, the Muslim hoards will be taught to behave reasonably. Or leave. I'm a tolerant chap, just don't push it. Do what you want in your own home. That's fine. Just don't shove it in my face or you just might get a reaction. OK?

Perhaps if the West and the Russians hadn't interfered in their homes in the first place we wouldn't be getting the mayhem back but of course you've got to keep that oil flowing. That isn't sanctioning terrorism but it is perhaps an explanation.

[Kwasaki]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

There is no need to "physically" monitor each and everyone of them 24/7. More efficient ways of applying and managing surveillance, even on such scale. But it does make for an impressive budget request.

A set-up vigilante force would be very cheap. 

[GuiseppeD]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Ah! So now we see your true colours. Yes, the Jihadis will certainly be annihilated 

 

BUT, the Muslim hoards will be taught to behave reasonably. Or leave. I'm a tolerant chap, just don't push it. Do what you want in your own home. That's fine. Just don't shove it in my face or you just might get a reaction. OK?

How will they be taught to behave reasonably?  

 

As I've already stated, if the government don't react extremely fast then it will result in anarchy on the streets.  I don't pretend to know the answer but know it will end up in severe violence, à la Poll Tax riots, if not worse.