RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:
The need for control orders arose from the problem of insufficient HUMINT. When they were scrapped, the reason why they were introduced /necessary - i.e. Not enough intel - was not addressed. On top of this, May actually reduced our HUMINT by cutting community policing, replacing it with the radicalising Prevent program that gets the community to dob members of the public in to the police for thought crimes. On top of this meanwhile, our foreign policy has provided easy propaganda for those evil organisations that mean us harm.

Well not exactly. The need for control orders arises because some evidence cannot be revealed in open court, as to do so would compromise the source or technology from which it is derived. The evidence is still be needed to satisfy the appropriate authority that were the evidence available to the court, it would have allowed for a reasonable expectation of a conviction.

I don't think that evidence derived from contact with a community policeman is covered by the control order legislation. No-one will be placed on a control order on the hearsay of a community policeman.

And as for your suggestion that Prevent is a cause of radicalisation? You're swallowing the bollocks that is being spewed out by those that Prevent is setting out to defeat.

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The Tories' watering down of control orders didn't help either. And that's according to IDS...

And yet you argue that Prevent is Orwellian?

You do know that control orders are a means of imposing sanctions on an individual when the evidence is insufficient to convict them before an open court, don't you?

I'm not arguing for a return to control orders, but the Tories should have replaced them with something that worked. They didn't and now we have the chaos that we have. If you have a large body of suspects - potentially dangerous people, you need the sufficient resources to be able to monitor them. Intel is the most key factor in the equation.

The need for control orders arose from the problem of insufficient HUMINT. When they were scrapped, the reason why they were introduced /necessary - i.e. Not enough intel - was not addressed. On top of this, May actually reduced our HUMINT by cutting community policing, replacing it with the radicalising Prevent program that gets the community to dob members of the public in to the police for thought crimes.

Meanwhile, our foreign policy has provided easy propaganda for those evil organisations that mean us harm, which has led to an increase in radicalisation. All this not mentioning other issues such as preventable radicalisation occurring as a consequence of an underfunded and overcrowded prison system...

Prevent predates May's term as Home Secretary.

As does the Terrorism Act of 2005, which gave us control orders. These provisions were not 'watered down' by Tory politicians, but replaced by TPIM following independent judicial review in 2011.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The Tories' watering down of control orders didn't help either. And that's according to IDS...

And yet you argue that Prevent is Orwellian?

You do know that control orders are a means of imposing sanctions on an individual when the evidence is insufficient to convict them before an open court, don't you?

Once they're being attacked for the heinously Orwellian strategies of Prevent and that watering control orders suggests a failure one might almost conclude what's being criticised is that they're Tories, and nothing to do with the actual policies. And it's daft as there's plenty to be critical of the Tories of in the area of security without allowing people such as me to castigate Corbyn for such a ridiculous line of attack as to link 20,000 job losses not in the area of terrorism to the London Bridge attack.

All that said I do now know one person who has voted Corbyn, obviously a postal vote, I wasn't sure that in the event I would know anyone who was willing to vote Corbyn, even from those who have or would vote Labour.

You're a much better man than me sarge when you engage in people being obviously twattish.

Mellsblue wrote:

Yep. See the infamous ISIS treatment of the Yazidis. See the amount of killings of Christians by Muslims in the India, Pakistan etc. I'm no Christian but to claim terrorism is occurring in the UK solely because of our foreign policy is just ridiculous.

Why is muslim terrorism occurring in the UK then?

To be fair, he has argued that it is ridiculous to suggest we are attacked solely because of our foreign policy. The invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 and the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2006 undoubtedly bumped us to the top of the Jihadi's to do list - and Spain's withdrawal from these operations following the Madrid bombing (Which effectively precipitated a regime change) got them off the same list.

But no matter how misguided you might consider them, these events were a response to extremist terrorism attacks on New York and Washington. It could be argued, of course, that 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings were a response to the stationing of US troops in Saudia Arabia following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but then you would have to argue that they were invited in by those Godfathers of Wahhabism (And co-religionists of Saddam's Sunni Iraq), the Sauds. Or that the coalition were very happy to oblige given the vital national interests that are tied into oil. Or that asking Shia Syria to join that coalition was merely stoking the region's sectarian flames. Or that the west had learned of the dangers of allowing a destabalising influence in the region that threatened those oil supplies. Or that this in turn was a consequence of the Cold War by proxy that was waged in the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli wars. Or back to Balfour or Sykes-Picot or Richard the Lion Heart.

So where does the spiral of cause and effect lead us and at what point do we challenge the glib and unsustainable argument that our recent foreign interventions have provided the excuse for the inexcusable?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:To be fair, he has argued that it is ridiculous to suggest we are attacked solely because of our foreign policy.The invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 and the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2006 undoubtedly bumped us to the top of the Jihadi's to do list - and Spain's withdrawal from these operations following the Madrid bombing (Which effectively precipitated a regime change) got them off the same list.

But no matter how misguided you might consider them, these events were a response to extremist terrorism attacks on New York and Washington. It could be argued, of course, that 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings were a response to the stationing of US troops in Saudia Arabia following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but then you would have to argue that they were invited in by those Godfathers of Wahhabism (And co-religionists of Saddam's Sunni Iraq), the Sauds. Or that the coalition were very happy to oblige given the vital national interests that are tied into oil. Or that asking Shia Syria to join that coalition was merely stoking the region's sectarian flames. Or that the west had learned of the dangers of allowing a destabalising influence in the region that threatened those oil supplies. Or that this in turn was a consequence of the Cold War by proxy that was waged in the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli wars. Or back to Balfour or Sykes-Picot or Richard the Lion Heart.

So where does the spiral of cause and effect lead us and at what point do we challenge the glib and unsustainable argument that our recent foreign interventions have provided the excuse for the inexcusable?

To be fair, no one is suggesting it's ONLY foreign policy. That's blatantly a strawman.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Yep. See the infamous ISIS treatment of the Yazidis. See the amount of killings of Christians by Muslims in the India, Pakistan etc. I'm no Christian but to claim terrorism is occurring in the UK solely because of our foreign policy is just ridiculous.

Why is muslim terrorism occurring in the UK then?

Any number of things. Goodness knows exactly what drives each of those nutters. I assume it's the same stuff that led to the attack on Mumbai, Bali etc etc. All places that have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:To be fair, he has argued that it is ridiculous to suggest we are attacked solely because of our foreign policy.The invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 and the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2006 undoubtedly bumped us to the top of the Jihadi's to do list - and Spain's withdrawal from these operations following the Madrid bombing (Which effectively precipitated a regime change) got them off the same list.

But no matter how misguided you might consider them, these events were a response to extremist terrorism attacks on New York and Washington. It could be argued, of course, that 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings were a response to the stationing of US troops in Saudia Arabia following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but then you would have to argue that they were invited in by those Godfathers of Wahhabism (And co-religionists of Saddam's Sunni Iraq), the Sauds. Or that the coalition were very happy to oblige given the vital national interests that are tied into oil. Or that asking Shia Syria to join that coalition was merely stoking the region's sectarian flames. Or that the west had learned of the dangers of allowing a destabalising influence in the region that threatened those oil supplies. Or that this in turn was a consequence of the Cold War by proxy that was waged in the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli wars. Or back to Balfour or Sykes-Picot or Richard the Lion Heart.

So where does the spiral of cause and effect lead us and at what point do we challenge the glib and unsustainable argument that our recent foreign interventions have provided the excuse for the inexcusable?

To be fair, no one is suggesting it's ONLY foreign policy. That's blatantly a strawman.

Listening to some of what Corbyn and his acolytes say it certainly sounds that way. At best, they're spinning it that way. There are also a lot of people claiming it's the main reason for the recent terror attacks and I'd dispute that too.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:To be fair, he has argued that it is ridiculous to suggest we are attacked solely because of our foreign policy. The invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 and the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2006 undoubtedly bumped us to the top of the Jihadi's to do list - and Spain's withdrawal from these operations following the Madrid bombing (Which effectively precipitated a regime change) got them off the same list.

But no matter how misguided you might consider them, these events were a response to extremist terrorism attacks on New York and Washington. It could be argued, of course, that 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings were a response to the stationing of US troops in Saudia Arabia following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but then you would have to argue that they were invited in by those Godfathers of Wahhabism (And co-religionists of Saddam's Sunni Iraq), the Sauds. Or that the coalition were very happy to oblige given the vital national interests that are tied into oil. Or that asking Shia Syria to join that coalition was merely stoking the region's sectarian flames. Or that the west had learned of the dangers of allowing a destabalising influence in the region that threatened those oil supplies. Or that this in turn was a consequence of the Cold War by proxy that was waged in the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli wars. Or back to Balfour or Sykes-Picot or Richard the Lion Heart.

So where does the spiral of cause and effect lead us and at what point do we challenge the glib and unsustainable argument that our recent foreign interventions have provided the excuse for the inexcusable?

So, if western interventionism/British FP aren't providing IS et al with excuses, then what's motivating them? Katy Perry's pendulous yams?

Mellsblue wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Yep. See the infamous ISIS treatment of the Yazidis. See the amount of killings of Christians by Muslims in the India, Pakistan etc. I'm no Christian but to claim terrorism is occurring in the UK solely because of our foreign policy is just ridiculous.

Why is muslim terrorism occurring in the UK then?

Any number of things. Goodness knows exactly what drives each of those nutters. I assume it's the same stuff that led to the attack on Mumbai, Bali etc etc. All places that have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

Like?

The Tories are still planning to cut £32 million from the budget of the Office of Security and Counterterrorism... So all you tories defending them on the grounds that they are increasing specialist units while they decrease other policing.... It's quite frankly nonsense.

Pendulous yams or not, Katy Perry is no Helen of Troy to be inspiring global jihad.

On an ISIS level - they directly claim that Western policy in the Middle East IS a reason (#4 IIRC) for their resistance.
On a personal level, I'd be amazed if absolutely none of these radicals were slightly upset to hear that members of their family had been killed directly, or indirectly, by Western interference (Yes, they still have cousins / siblings / grandparents etc who haven't come to Britain, or who came, but returned).

To claim that foriegn policy has no effect is to ignore everything we know about human nature, and direct statements from ISIS and their likes.
Just as bad is to claim that it's the sole reason (fortunately, absolutely no-one HAS claimed that one).

Other reasons are our liberal attitudes (immorality), our democracy/freedom and our not being Muslim (and specificaly whichever specific minority sect of Islam that individual identifies as).

So if we take those as the 4 principal points of reasoning; what can we do anything about? Can/should we stop treating women, the LGBT community and science with any for of respect? Can/should we abandon democracy and declare ourselves an authoritarian theocracy? Can/should we all convert not only to Islam, but ALSO to Whabism, (and end up in a continual internecine war based on being the wrong sect of Wahibism)? Can/should we adjust our foriegn policy and maybe stop seeing them as inconenient irrelevances sitting on a bunch of natural resources that should be ours?

If they want to come at us for the rest, then fuck 'em. If they come at us for bombing the shit out of their relatives because we wanted their oil (and security and building contracts) then... they've kinda got a point; and we should stop doing that.
It may only reduce these attacks by 10%, or it might be 50% - who knows, each individual will has his own reasons that finally flips them from devout to radical, and from radical to suicide-terrorist.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
Why is muslim terrorism occurring in the UK then?

Any number of things. Goodness knows exactly what drives each of those nutters. I assume it's the same stuff that led to the attack on Mumbai, Bali etc etc. All places that have nothing to do with western foreign policy.

Like?

The fact they're mental, that parts of the Koran can be interpreted as demanding these atrocities if you're mental, that they hate our liberal way of life. There are any number of things.
The Manchester bomber was from a family that actively opposed Gadafi and moved to the UK as refugees, as Gadafi and his regime were a threat to their lives. Why would he be so pissed off at western foreign policy that brought Gadafi's reign to an end? If he was, why would he attack a concert featuring an often scantily dressed woman with an audience predominantly full of girls as revenge. Possibly for the same reason that Malala Yousafzai was attacked - that it was against his warped beliefs.
Do you fancy explaining to me why these idiots carry out attacks in countries that are absolutely nothing to do with western foreign policy if the sole reason for these attacks are western foreign policy?

Mellsblue wrote:Do you fancy explaining to me why these idiots carry out attacks in countries that are absolutely nothing to do with western foreign policy if the sole reason for these attacks are western foreign policy?

Once again - could you please provide ANY evidence that ANYONE thinks this before countuing the straw-man argument against it?

Which Tyler wrote:On an ISIS level - they directly claim that Western policy in the Middle East IS a reason (#4 IIRC) for their resistance.
On a personal level, I'd be amazed if absolutely none of these radicals were slightly upset to hear that members of their family had been killed directly, or indirectly, by Western interference (Yes, they still have cousins / siblings / grandparents etc who haven't come to Britain, or who came, but returned).

To claim that foriegn policy has no effect is to ignore everything we know about human nature, and direct statements from ISIS and their likes.
Just as bad is to claim that it's the sole reason (fortunately, absolutely no-one HAS claimed that one).

Nobody is claiming that western foreign policy isn't a reason/influence for this. However, there is an argument as to how influential it is. Labour, well Team Corbyn, are spinning it that western foreign policy is the main/sole reason for this, just as they're spinning the fact that 20,000 less police officers is the reason it happened. But the fact remains that these sort of atrocities have been carried out all over the world in the name of Islam and western foreign policy can't be blamed for that.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Do you fancy explaining to me why these idiots carry out attacks in countries that are absolutely nothing to do with western foreign policy if the sole reason for these attacks are western foreign policy?

Once again - could you please provide ANY evidence that ANYONE thinks this before countuing the straw-man argument against it?

The poster I initially responded to.

Mellsblue wrote:Nobody is claiming that western foreign policy isn't a reason/influence for this. However, there is an argument as to how influential it is. Labour, well Team Corbyn, are spinning it that western foreign policy is the main/sole reason for this, just as they're spinning the fact that 20,000 less police officers is the reason it happened. But the fact remains that these sort of atrocities have been carried out all over the world in the name of Islam and western foreign policy can't be blamed for that.

Far more people are far closer to claiming this than claim it's the only reason.
And no, Corbyn isn't spinning it that way (IMO) - he's spinning it that it is A factor, amongst many others, but one we can actually acknowledge and do something about, as opposed to denying, and doubling down on this causative factor.
So... your fact here is a false fact unless and until you can provide a quote.

We're all aware that these attorcities are happening elsewhere - fortunately absolutely nobody is claiming that Western foreign policy is the sole cause - however many times you assert that people are doing so.

Mellsblue wrote: Once again - could you please provide ANY evidence that ANYONE thinks this before countuing the straw-man argument against it?

The poster I initially responded to.[/quote]
Again, I don't believe you. I will continue to not believe you until you've provided a quote.

Zhivago wrote:The Tories are still planning to cut £32 million from the budget of the Office of Security and Counterterrorism... So all you tories defending them on the grounds that they are increasing specialist units while they decrease other policing.... It's quite frankly nonsense.

That is just one body that deals with these things. Spending on anti-terrorism across all programmes and bodies is going up.

Regardless, you could give Diane Abbott an extra 30billion and we'd still be no better off:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Nobody is claiming that western foreign policy isn't a reason/influence for this. However, there is an argument as to how influential it is. Labour, well Team Corbyn, are spinning it that western foreign policy is the main/sole reason for this, just as they're spinning the fact that 20,000 less police officers is the reason it happened. But the fact remains that these sort of atrocities have been carried out all over the world in the name of Islam and western foreign policy can't be blamed for that.

Far more people are far closer to claiming this than claim it's the only reason.
A) And no, Corbyn isn't spinning it that way (IMO) - he's spinning it that it is A factor, amongst many others, but one we can actually acknowledge and do something about, as opposed to denying, and doubling down on this causative factor.
B) So... your fact here is a false fact unless and until you can provide a quote.

We're all aware that these attorcities are happening elsewhere - fortunately absolutely nobody is claiming that Western foreign policy is the sole cause - however many times you assert that people are doing so.

Mellsblue wrote: Once again - could you please provide ANY evidence that ANYONE thinks this before countuing the straw-man argument against it?

The poster I initially responded to.

C) Again, I don't believe you. I will continue to not believe you until you've provided a quote.[/quote]



A) Well it certainly doesn't seem that way to me. As you say it is opinion and I doubt we'll persuade each other to change the other's mind.
B) Why would the Munbai attack etc have anything to do with western foreign policy. Why would Boko Haram's actions have anything to do with western foreign policy. The facts are that atrocities are carried out in the name of Islam all over the world in places where western foreign policy cannot be a factor. I look forward to your facts arguing against this.
C) I'm not giving you quotes when it's from a post made this morning.

Mellsblue wrote:A) Well it certainly doesn't seem that way to me. As you say it is opinion and I doubt we'll persuade each other to change the other's mind.
B) Why would the Munbai attack etc have anything to do with western foreign policy. Why would Boko Haram's actions have anything to do with western foreign policy. The facts are that atrocities are carried out in the name of Islam all over the world in places where western foreign policy cannot be a factor. I look forward to your facts arguing against this.
C) I'm not giving you quotes when it's from a post made this morning.

A] Is pretty clearly a matter of opinion and interpretation of words said. I'm not particularly loking to change your, or anyone else mind on this. However, you presenting your opinion of his opinion as factual, is factually incorrect.

B] What? I addressed this in tpoint B.5] - you seem to agree though, as no-one is claiming that Western foriegn policy is the sole cause of islamic terrorism, then there are causes of islamic terrorism that aren't Western foreign policy

C] So.. no quotes, and I'll continue to go with "Mells is lying"
ETA: I have done a little research for you though; you're first quoting of someone else in this thread was

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'm just wondering how we can blame western foreign policy for Muslims killing Christians in the subcontinent. The Yazidis must have an awful foreign policy.

The terrorist attacks of the last year have been aimed at western society - music concerts, Saturday night drinking, Christmas markets etc - it is about our way of life and religion, not just our foreign policy.

Yes, it's not just foreign policy, but that's where the batshit crazy religion and its interpretation comes into things.

Which seems to confirm that your first intervention was NOT against someone claiming foreign policy as the sole cause.

Which Tyler wrote: C} So.. no quotes, and I'll continue to go with "Mells is lying"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... -full-text

"We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home. [Conveniently side-stepping the more significant interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan under a Labour Government!]

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions. [Conveniently avoiding any rational explanation of the underlying causes of their actions]

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism. [Conveniently avoiding any reference to his own understanding of those causes]


Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform. And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre. But we must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism. [And what is that smarter way, when you are dealing with ISIS?]

Does that help, WT?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Does that help, WT?

In what way?
Has he claimed that Western foreign policy is the SOLE CAUSE?

No number of quotes of him or anyone else claiming that it is A cause makes it into a belief of being the SOLE CAUSE.
You need to find something where someone somewhere denies other causes; or claims that foreign policy is SOLE CAUSE.