Jump to content

The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"


legov

Recommended Posts

 

Known to security services who attempted to recruit him. Wasn't allowed to move to Kuwait a few years ago when he got a job over there. Seems like every bloody terrorist was known to the security services yet nothing is done to stop them.

....as night follows day, "it was someone else's fault". If he hasn't done enough in the UK to remove his liberty then whether he is a wrong 'un in the making or not, there is only so much they can do. The alternative is internment and I can imagine the wails of "Islamaphobia!" if the security services were pre-emptively acting against people like this before they started murdering people.

As it stands now I hope the little rat gets caught and skinned alive.

There does seem to be a "bit of a pattern" of people "known to" the Security Forces being able to carry on and do their hideous deeds - recently there was the two religionist nutters who attacked the Soldier Lee Rigby in London. There are many examples. You kind of wonder whether they are subsituting "doing surveillance work" with using CCTV and computers to just kind of "log stuff".

Or is it that they've not hgot enough people to do the work, so they're guessing which bad folk to watch more closely?

But it's not about locking up people with no evidence, surely it's about actually getting the evidence, rather than trawling everyone's phone and internets records and then sorting through it all, try targetting the efforts and resources on yer actual religionist nutjobs, scummers and ne'er do-wells. Then bosh them with the evidence and a stint in the big house.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, very difficult to do anything I suppose.

As it should be.

Unfortunately, the standard reaction is to make it easier so...

The CTS bill might take care of your second point though.

... 'we' come up with this kind of tripe (the Bill/Act - not your post!).

BTW, it received royal assent on 12th Feb and part of it (like the passport seizure stuff) has been law since then. The rest is to follow.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTS bill to seems to be all very subjective.  A bit like a 'non violent extremist' that May has been harping on about.  What is one of those and how do you define it?  Will the definition change over time?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTS bill to seems to be all very subjective.  A bit like a 'non violent extremist' that May has been harping on about.  What is one of those and how do you define it?  Will the definition change over time?

According to this piece:

...

Extremism does not appear in the Bill, but it is defined in the Prevent guidance (to be made statutory) as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’.[4] This might sound unexceptional on its face, although the reference to ‘fundamental British values’ suggests a political agenda. But recently, pro-Palestine posters in a student union office drew unwelcome police attention; and a Manchester teenager was referred to the Prevent programme for attendance at a peaceful protest against the Israeli ambassador. It seems that in the name of freedom and democracy, freedom of expression is once again under attack. Universities UK, UCU, the NUS and the JCHR, among others, have asked, how is this new duty to be balanced with the obligation on universities to defend academic freedom and freedom of speech?[5] In the wake of recent revelations about police or security services’ surveillance of highly reputable historians, anti-racist activists and bereaved family members of black victims of racist murders, a statutory duty to prevent ‘non-violent extremism’ could easily be directed against ‘vocal or active opposition’ of any sort, including the sort which is vital to democracy – and the provisions will certainly have a chilling effect on the ability to have passionate political arguments in public arenas. JUSTICE has expressed concern that authorities will ‘take an overly restrictive approach to support for freedom of expression and association’.

...longish piece on link

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite liked the idea of the family members of one of his victims.

 

Get him captured, give him a trial, lock him away in solitary for ever.Thirty or Forty years of a small beige room with exactly the same thing to eat at exactly the same time every single one of the next 15,000 days.

 

Perhaps once every 5 years show him a power point of all the new cool stuff in the western world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only in this country could they blame jihadi john on ourselves. the lefties in this country do my pissing head in at times and they will never realise the truth until its to late.

Not only in your country. We do that over here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

only in this country could they blame jihadi john on ourselves. the lefties in this country do my pissing head in at times and they will never realise the truth until its to late.

What is the truth?

 

I think the truth is that of whatever, 60 million people in the UK, of those old enough to understand what he did, that 99.999% are utterly appalled by it. There's perhaps a tiny percentage who think "it's not his fault, it's someone else's", and there are some more who think "it's his fault, but sometimes the way we deal with these bonkerjobs sometimes isn't that helpful" - whether it's "we should try and understand why and change their perceptions", or whether it's "we should just lock 'em up at the first sign of being a bit ropey"

 

I don't think it's a "lefty" or "righty" thing. There will always be a few publicity seeking numpties looking to put across their skewed views "hang em all" or "give them all some love" (I paraphrase).

 

No one really "blames ourselves" for this bloke committing, apparently, multiple beheadings.

 

Trying to grasp why someone would do such an horrific thing, in order to stop others in future isn't a bad idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

only in this country could they blame jihadi john on ourselves. the lefties in this country do my pissing head in at times and they will never realise the truth until its to late.

What is the truth?

 

the truth is there is a serious problem.

Edited by Rugeley Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed . A drone strike or a bullet to the head would be too quick for this word removed . I hope he suffers slowly .

 

we could do a Villa drone strike and just repeatedly shoot him in the foot, week after week until he's really really sad

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â