No. I’m in the minority here, but I want to send NATO forces throughout the Middle East to annihilate ISIS where they live.
3 Likes
Oohrah. (Had to google the spelling)
3 Likes
Seems we see the paper in a different light. I don’t like Corbyn at all but they criticise him as often as write positively about him, it’s about as balanced as a paper gets. Far from a “total rag” but I’m just going to leave it there as I think we are poles apart.
1 Like
It’s a difference in political culture between US/Europe - even those of us over here that lean libertarian are more statist that our US counterparts.
But general legal issues aside, if a bunch of mosque-goers sign a petition against a particular imam because he condemned ISIS, then I would like to see those mosque-goers detained, no matter the legal reasoning behind it.
Same with those salafis “known to the police”
Fair enough. Have a good one 
I didn’t realize how much of a difference there was.
Libertarianism is heavily featured in your politics. In the UK it is a fringe element. Unfortunate, but it is what it is.
The American mindset is also still capable of winning a war of ideas. Europe is so deracinated that it doesn’t even know what it wants long term, never mind having the fortitude to actually advocate for it.
2 Likes
Problem is controlling actions can only be done after they have committed the action. Salman Abedi didn’t do an action until it was too late entirely for reaction to take place.
Thoughts lead to actions and after the action has taken place in these cases we cannot do anything.
That’s why I think in this extreme case the thoughts have to be controlled. [quote=“Drew1411, post:161, topic:229963”]
Hyperbole doesn’t not contribute to a meaningful discussion, and is usually comes off as trolling.
[/quote]
Loaded question was intentionally loaded too heavily. My bad.[quote=“anon50325502, post:162, topic:229963”]
I want to send NATO forces throughout the Middle East to annihilate ISIS where they live.
[/quote]
I disagree with this sentiment to an extent. If we were to wipe out ISIS where they live will that stop the hidden extremists in my country from committing atrocities? No. Would it have a effect on the numbers of attacks. Short term they would sky rocket in outrage by extremists already prepared to attack. Long term as no more can be trained or indoctrinated they would fall. Removing the way for them to be indoctrinated and radicalised would not be effective in reducing the attacks as people here are already prepared to attack. My thoughts would be to completely stump everyone that can commit attacks here, then move on to where they are grown. Agree at all?
And banning Muslim from entry wouldn’t have the exact same impact?
So every citizen then? Like this dude:
You’ve done this a few times, where you are intentionally using hyperbole or leading questions (I think you said in the other thread “socialist bait” with your question to ED). If that’s how you want to have discussion, go for it, but I don’t think it comes off in a respectful way. More like you are trolling or trying to trick somebody as a know-it-all.
I agree, in the USA we do not punish people for thoughts or for things they say, even if we disagree. I think there is good reason for the first amendment and what it protects.
3 Likes
1 Like
Where did I mention banning Muslims? I wouldn’t do that at all. I’d advocate for not letting those with extremist views in since they cannot co-exist peacefully.[quote=“anon50325502, post:170, topic:229963”]
So every citizen then? Like this dude:
[/quote]
Someone being white doesn’t give them special privileges in anyway shape or form contrary to popular beliefs. If you are an extremist and want to murder innocent kids your skin colour is irrelevant in the treatment you receive.
I am talking about the critical situation in the UK at the moment. Nothing to do with the first amendment unfortunately.
I wanted to know if ED would draw a line on national health care and what it covers which he did thankfully. Many a people would of “fallen” for it. I agree with ED on most issues to do with healthcare as he wants the US system to be more like our NHS.
How in the world would you do that without banning Muslim’s from entering your country? I mean, honestly, how in the world would you do that without banning everyone from entering the country?
You said:[quote=“hugh_gilly, post:169, topic:229963”]
My thoughts would be to completely stump everyone that can commit attacks here, then move on to where they are grown.
[/quote]
My point is, how will you stop people like this from committing Jihad on UK soil? You can’t profile them for reasons you stated.
And I agree with ED when he said, “Once again, you are on the verge of failing to get a response from me. If you can’t be more civil, you soon won’t.”
If that is how you want to come off, that is fine. Make your arguments however you want to. I figured I would let you know what the perception is when you are trolling and/or trying to trick people.
What. Did you mean to say that every Muslim has extremist views? [quote=“anon50325502, post:175, topic:229963”]
how in the world would you do that without banning everyone from entering the country?
[/quote]
How would everyone be banned. Just don’t let in people that will not be capable of existing together properly[quote=“anon50325502, post:175, topic:229963”]
My point is, how will you stop people like this from committing Jihad on UK soil? You can’t profile them for reasons you stated.
[/quote]
Well why not? People don’t just wake up an extremist they can be detected from months before they do an attack. Just those who show signs of a possibly doing a attack as I and legalsteel have mentioned then arrest them and question. Then decide to imprison, release or deport.
.
No.
How will you screen people entering your country in order to determine who has extremist views?
Why can’t you profile a Ginger? Uhhh because he doesn’t look like a typical Muslim. That’s how profiling works…
They can be, but they aren’t always.
This sounds like the definition of a police state where Due Process is a punch line and not a legal protection. That’s a pass for me, but you Brits can do what you want.
The idea of individual sovereignty above all else (public order, common good) is a radical concept.
The idea of creating a list of things the government may not do is radical.
Codifying that individual rights exist outside of government (unalienable) and therefore can’t be taken by government is radical.
Even though our laws have a foundation in the European tradition (from Hamurabi to English common law) American statists are often well right of Euro statists when it comes to individual liberty.
We did the American thing. We supersised the ideas.
2 Likes
Legal steel laid out some nice criteria that I agreed upon earlier for detecting the extremist views. [quote=“anon50325502, post:178, topic:229963”]
Why can’t you profile a Ginger? Uhhh because he doesn’t look like a typical Muslim.
[/quote]
It’s got nothing to do with profiling. Its got everything to do with what their views are. [quote=“anon50325502, post:178, topic:229963”]
They can be, but they aren’t always.
[/quote]
In the two most recent terror attacks in the UK they were known to Police and were detected, alongside over 3000 other potential extremists. If you can find a UK terror attack where the attacker was not known to us beforehand please show it to me. [quote=“anon50325502, post:178, topic:229963”]
This sounds like the definition of a police state where Due Process is a punch line and not a legal protection.
[/quote]
I have no idea why terrorists deserve rights or protection under law. The interview could be conducted by a third party source outside of the Police so its not biased in how its done if you are worried about that.
1 Like
Okay, you’re obviously not getting what I’m saying so I’m just gonna leave it alone.