London attacks - what's going on???

[Beaker]

The only thing increased security and checks does is moves the problem elsewhere.

Look at Isreal, the most "secure" country on earth - and they have tit-for-tat attacks almost weekly.

If you set up a cordon around a police station, then a bomber will blow themselves up at the edge of that cordon, right were everyone is waiting to be searched - just like they do in Iraq every day.

Yesterday over 50 children were gunned down in ethnic violence in Kenya, 26 children were victims of a suicide bomb in Iraq, over 120 people died in a train crash in Pakistan. That was yesterday, and everyday there are things happening around the world that make our one time hit pale into perspective.

Restricting our freedoms would not have prevented these bombings, if anything they would only serve to further allientate a section of the community that is hanging on at best. We already have stop and search powers, we already have surveilance powers, what more do you need? I go back to Israel - if someone wants you dead enough, they will find a way. They only have to "win" and get through once, we have to find and stop them every time - it just wont happen.

The only way we can diffuse this is to adjust our foreign policies - not make rash statements such as Bush's inspired black-and-white "you are either with us or with the terrorists" one. Well actually there are actually a whole world of people who aren't with either and quite like it that way.

We impose our ideals, beliefs and moral systems on people and cultures that don't want it, never have and are constantly being told they are different, and not in a good way. Stoppping and searching people every 100yrds will only serve to increase alienationa nd distrust - and create the exact situation you are trying to avoid.

 

[Robbo]

Pesty, I agree for the most part in what you are saying but the problem I see is that far too many liberalists equate a 'tightening' of security with a Stalinist state and that extension is I believe, not a reasonable one to make because as a result of that scaremongering, we end up doing zip when we should be banging up these people who visit the training camps instead of protecting their rights.

Phew !!!!!

Peace, have a good day Pesty !

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Robbo
Pesty, I agree for the most part in what you are saying but the problem I see is that far too many liberalists equate a 'tightening' of security with a Stalinist state and that extension is I believe, not a reasonable one to make because as a result of that scaremongering, we end up doing zip when we should be banging up these people who visit the training camps instead of protecting their rights.

Phew !!!!!

Peace, have a good day Pesty !

OK, I know I said I was out, but I think that I need to bring in a concrete example of my wooly headed liberal thinking straight out of my ivory tower, so if you'll indulge me...

As a result of the next terror attack, Paintball is banned.

Now this is totally feasible and exactly the sort of 'tightening' I'm talking about.

Let's face a few facts: Paintball has already been cited in two cases as being used in these training camps (Michigan and somewhere in Canada, I believe) but even if it hadn't, given that the police and security forces both use Paintball in their training, it is not any leap of the imagination to suggest that Paintball could be - and indeed is - used in such a way.

In fact, it really doesn't matter if it has been used as a training method, or if a marker is used in an act itself - either way, given your statement that you trusted the Govt to do what's best to protect our safety, you could have little complaint at Paintball being banned in new terror prevention laws.

Self-loading rifles were banned in 88 when Michael Ryan went postal in Hungerford; an illegally held handgun used in Dunblane led to the UK handgun ban; and just recently, deacts, air cartridge pistols and soft air (the closest thing to Paintball by a country mile) all got hit. These bans cost innocent, law-abiding people their businesses, their livlihoods and their hobby - in numbers that make Paintball seem like a pimple on an elephant's arse.

So, forget all your talk of accepting being searched and having your freedom restricted in your day to day life - I ain't even going to go that far, all I'm going to say is this: If the Govt announced as part of its new anti-terror laws that Paintball was banned, would you simply accept that as being a reasonable restriction of your civil liberties, as they were protecting you? You'll lose your job and the sport you've given 20 years of your life to, and you won't get a single penny in compensation, but hey - you'll be safer.

Because by your previously stated arguments, the only answer you can possibly give to that question is 'yes'.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by duffistuta
OK, I know I said I was out, but I think that I need to bring in a concrete example of my wooly headed liberal thinking straight out of my ivory tower, so if you'll indulge me...

As a result of the next terror attack, Paintball is banned.

Now this is totally feasible and exactly the sort of 'tightening' I'm talking about.

Let's face a few facts: Paintball has already been cited in two cases as being used in these training camps (Michigan and somewhere in Canada, I believe) but even if it hadn't, given that the police and security forces both use Paintball in their training, it is not any leap of the imagination to suggest that Paintball could be - and indeed is - used in such a way.

In fact, it really doesn't matter if it has been used as a training method, or if a marker is used in an act itself - either way, given your statement that you trusted the Govt to do what's best to protect our safety, you could have little complaint at Paintball being banned in new terror prevention laws.

Self-loading rifles were banned in 88 when Michael Ryan went postal in Hungerford; an illegally held handgun used in Dunblane led to the UK handgun ban; and just recently, deacts, air cartridge pistols and soft air (the closest thing to Paintball by a country mile) all got hit. These bans cost innocent, law-abiding people their businesses, their livlihoods and their hobby - in numbers that make Paintball seem like a pimple on an elephant's arse.

So, forget all your talk of accepting being searched and having your freedom restricted in your day to day life - I ain't even going to go that far, all I'm going to say is this: If the Govt announced as part of its new anti-terror laws that Paintball was banned, would you simply accept that as being a reasonable restriction of your civil liberties, as they were protecting you? You'll lose your job and the sport you've given 20 years of your life to, and you won't get a single penny in compensation, but hey - you'll be safer.

Because by your previously stated arguments, the only answer you can possibly give to that question is 'yes'.

And Steve, this post is EXACTLY the sort of unrealistic scaremongering that I am talking about that distorts potential realities and ends up dictating policies that can ultimately hurt the very people we are supposed to be protecting......

The relaity is....paintball is quite safe and your suggested hypotehtical doesn't, in my opinion, require an answer because it has no real chance of coming about.

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Robbo


The relaity is....paintball is quite safe and your suggested hypotehtical doesn't, in my opinion, require an answer because it has no real chance of coming about.

I honestly cannot believe you wrote that.

If you genuinely believe that to be the case, then you're right, one of us is living in la-la land.

I'm off.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by duffistuta
I honestly cannot believe you wrote that.

If you genuinely believe that to be the case, then you're right, one of us is living in la-la land.

I'm off.

Steve, we both know that neither of us is living in La La land and we both know the other is far from unintelligent, that said, it still leaves the question how two people (neither resident in La La Land) can have such diametrically opposing views.

I don’t honestly know the answer other than to suspect it has something to do with the way we both view the world and what starts out as our respective subconscious socio / political viewpoints ends up flourishing in debates such as these.

I don't like suggesting that it's something we will have to 'agree to disagree' because it implies a degree of ignorance and intransigence on at least one party but my intransigence isn't because I am stubborn, it's because I truly believe what I am saying and this is borne out of seriously thinking about the issues on hand.
I dare say, exactly the same process you would have employed.
I will readily concede, my radical views on the present state of our society will affect how I think.

Problem solving social issues like these are not mathematics Duff and as such immediately move outside of the realm of true logic and reason and in that context, although it's hard for me to accept, issues like these aren't going to be solved by rational thought alone and this is the very reason why you and I disagree on this one.

 

[Gyroscope]

Perhaps the problem is that it is difficult to quantify the vulnerability of paintball in British law? Or the association between paintball and small arms training in the minds of law makers?

It seems like both parties are viewing worst case scenarios in an attempt not to be imprudent in responding to terrorist threats.

 

[duffistuta]

I understand all that mate, I just struggle to believe you don't see it as a genuine possibility - mind, neither did the thousands of airsoft skirmishers, the site owners, the marker manufacturers and the magazine publisher, until their sport got canned a couple of weeks back.

 

[HERMITT]

Apart from the fact that we are in danger of veering massively off in a silly direction, not to mention slightly trivialising the events, paintball is the least of worries!

In answer to Boris Johnson - I would point back at him the fact that these were not immigrants they were as English/British as you and me. They come from 3rd/4th generation immigrants and are essentially as part of our society as pie and mash! To say that educating 'them' in British citizenship would somehow have rpevented this is ridiculous. The majority of school children irrespective of their ethnic origin have very little knowledge of what it means to be British or English. I find his kind of rhetoric both naive in the extreme and highly patronising.

This isnt about educating people in what it is to be British or assuming that 'they' know less about it than we do. I think it may be worth pointing out that Boris Johnson is himself a son of an immigrant family. Lucky he's white really!

 

[Ben Frain]

Originally posted by HERMITT
Apart from the fact that we are in danger of veering massively off in a silly direction, not to mention slightly trivialising the events, paintball is the least of worries!

In answer to Boris Johnson - I would point back at him the fact that these were not immigrants they were as English/British as you and me. They come from 3rd/4th generation immigrants and are essentially as part of our society as pie and mash! To say that educating 'them' in British citizenship would somehow have rpevented this is ridiculous. The majority of school children irrespective of their ethnic origin have very little knowledge of what it means to be British or English. I find his kind of rhetoric both naive in the extreme and highly patronising.

This isnt about educating people in what it is to be British or assuming that 'they' know less about it than we do. I think it may be worth pointing out that Boris Johnson is himself a son of an immigrant family. Lucky he's white really!

Interesting, I took it to mean that EVERYONE in Britain would receive these classes - as such I feel that is a great idea for making sure we are all 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. I agree if just those designated of 'needing' Britishness classes received them they would certainly know a damn site more than the current indiginous population about Britishness...