London attacks - what's going on???

[Chicago]

Re: The real problem is poverty.

Originally posted by Ben Frain
Mmmm, I'm afraid that theory seems a little 'thin'. For example, how do you explain the on going tensions between India (Hindu/Sikkh) and Pakistan (Muslim) - you can't tell me that's all the fault of western farmers too?

Political saber rattling, and poverty.

Why do France and Germany now have open borders after one invaded the other twice in the past 100 years? Simply because they have better things to do than fight each other. Even in the US, we can't seem to sign up for any "major" conflict (onein which we sustain vietnam or WWII level casualties) because everything is pretty good. Most people arn't starving.

Look anywhere on the planet. Potential for armed conflict is directly tied to poverty level.

 

[Collier]

Originally posted by Missy Q


Anyone else think that finding the 'ID papers' for all these bombers is a little too convenient?

Like finding the passports of the 9/11 hi-jackers...

 

[Chicago]

With anything, there is a tradeoff. You could prevent a lot of deaths every year if you didn't let people use motor vehicles. But there would be an unaccaptable negative affect in other areas of society. A little death is worth a lot of improvement in the standard of living.

If a massive restriction of personal liberties is only going to save you 50 lives every year, you should let 50 people die.

 

[Robbo]

All this reminds me of something my ole man used to tell me about years ago when he said that some of the Greek philosophers of old used to address a sort of governing forum and take a stance on a certain issue finally arriving at a conclusion that was as a direct and logical result of what the philosopher had been discussing.

The same philosopher would then later re-enter the forum and discuss the same subject but this time come up with a conclusion that ran completely contra to his first one but...his deductive processes in both could hardly be flawed by his audience.

The use of language to communicate is both enlightening and misleading and in the hands of an idealist, damned dangerous, as four Brits have ended up bombing their own people after listening to their own brand of 'truth'.

People can pick the bones out what other people have said in this thread but in the end, it doesn't really come down to logic, it can't do otherwise the more intelligent people who have contributed to this thread would generally be in agreement...it then beggars the question......what is motivating the people who post here?
And how much does that motivation shape what they say once we acknowledge logic plays little part in proceedings?

 

[Collier]

Interesting Pete, let's try it!
Everyone role reversal!

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Collier
Interesting Pete, let's try it!
Everyone role reversal!

No Probs Paul, here goes mate :-

Excuse me while I just shut the door of my ivory tower in suburbia and put aside my copy of the Guardian in favour of reading 'vegetarianism for free thinkers'.

We need not to create anarchy but allow everybody to do as they wish, no governmental intervention with the police eventually being disbanded and we could have little communes responsible for all matters.

We should open our borders to all our fellow world friends no matter what their reason for coming, we should welcome everybody.

We shouldn't imprison killers, rapists and paedophiles, we should welcome them back into society and work with them to change them into free loving people but upholding their rights to freedom.

Paul, sorry mate, I can't go on with this charade any longer as I realise that there are actually people out there who think like this and it makes me wanna vommit.

 

[Collier]

Originally posted by Robbo
No Probs Paul, here goes mate :-

Excuse me while I just shut the door of my ivory tower in suburbia and put aside my copy of the Guardian in favour of reading 'vegetarianism for free thinkers'.

We need not to create anarchy but allow everybody to do as they wish, no governmental intervention with the police eventually being disbanded and we could have little communes responsible for all matters.

We should open our borders to all our fellow world friends no matter what their reason for coming, we should welcome everybody.

We shouldn't imprison killers, rapists and paedophiles, we should welcome them back into society and work with them to change them into free loving people but upholding their rights to freedom.

Paul, sorry mate, I can't go on with this charade any longer as I realise that there are actually people out there who think like this and it makes me wanna vommit.

Well ya tried Pete...

Next?

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by duffistuta
Which as you well know is unanswerable, therefore not worth raising...

I think common sense might give us some idea because the respective governments ain't gonna exactly publicise succes rates now are they...and even if they did, you read any?

Come on Steve, you gotta do better than that mate.
We both know that some unanswerables (Heisenberg's) are actually well worth rasing...

 

[Jake]

I apologise now If I am repeating what others have already said as I only skim read the last 5 or so pages.

In relation to stop/search powers for terrorism they are already in place. Section 44(1) and 44(2). A police officer in uniform can stop and search any person, vehicle or anything being carried by the person or in or on the vehicle in a specified area. That already exists - the police do not have to have any justification other than the law in itself. There are some powerful laws already in place, I also think the more liberal minded amongst you would be suprised how responsibly and professionally they are used.

There are steps that could be taken to make the jobs of the police and the security services easier in dealing with terrorism per se. However it is important that there is a full democratic debate about how they might be used or abused.

The powers available to the police and security services are essential. Without them many more people would have been and would be killed. However simply going around shooting people we suspect of being terrorists is an absolutely insane notion.

You can disrupt and punish would be terrorists without simply killing them. We sink to their level if we resort to killing people to support our objectives when other avenues are open to us (obviously ignoring the events in Iraq, Palestine etc that western and allied governments seek to justify). Regardless of this - if the police or security services knew that suicide bombers were on the way to commit mass murder do you think they would have asked them nicely to stop? Of course not.

I think I'll avoid getting drawn into any prolonged arguments over what is right and wrong, or what causes certain people to kill themselves and others in the name of religion or a specific belief system. You never know who might be watching?!.....

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
Sorry to infringe but would you concede that getting the plan I mentioned (MI5 offing naughty extremists) in motion would deal with no2 without affecting your personal freedoms?

Offing these extremists is not a good plan. Israel has tried it, and the only result is more anger aimed at them and more bombs thrown at them. Most of these bigwigs have a popular followung of some kind. It's a spiral of violence you should never wish to enter.

Fighting extremism with extremism will only polarise both sides of the conflict, and more moderate people will be drawn towards th extremists as well...