• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Manchester Arena explosion: 22 killed in 'terror attack by suicide bomber' at concer

Don't bother trying to talk sense to spacejunk. Once someone is that deeply indoctrinated by hard left lunacy it's impossible to get through to them.
 
Somerandomdude said:
Don't bother trying to talk sense to spacejunk. Once someone is that deeply indoctrinated by hard left lunacy it's impossible to get through to them.
Click to expand...

Don't bother posting those sort of remarks here.

-=SS=- said:
Innocent until proven guilty is applicable to subjects or citizens of the nation, not to people outside that realm of jurisdiction.. our laws apply to our citizens and within our jurisdiction. People coming in from outside territories, with the exception of tourists who essentially become temporary subjects whilst here, are not automatically equal with those who have been born and raised within our borders.

This is the inflexible approach again. In an ideal world we could be happy with limited or no screening, but not when there is an actual threat. Surely you must understand this point? Yes it may make life more difficult for those wishing to come here, but so what.. their 'right' to come here is nowhere near the actual right of citizens actually living here to be protected from harm.. we pay our government taxes and give them power to protect us, it's one of their top priorities.
Click to expand...

I understand the prinicple of innocent until proven guilty. What I was saying is that it "could" be extended to non-citizens in regards to immigration matters.

I've never advocated open borders or no screening process. I believe that anyone entering a country needs to be vetted in the most comprehensive manner possible. However, I also accept that people fleeing a war zone may not have documentation. I'm not sure what to do in this circumstance, but I believe it is best to apply the benefit of the doubt. Because most immigrants are not terrorists, and most of the current wave of terrorists are actually already citizens.

If you start to change your policies because of terrorists, you are allowing terrorists a role in determining your countries future. I do not understand why you would want this and why you would give into them. They deplore our lifestyle, don't they? They want us to concede their power. I don't want to do that and I don't want my country to do that.

That is slightly disingenuous Swillow - his parents were Libyan migrants, so actually it may have done in this instance.
Click to expand...

I was more referring to the fact that this terrorist was not part of the current wave of immigration across Europe, and therefore having different immigration policy contemporaneously would not have helped.

Secondly, saying if we get tougher on immigration will cause more radicalism.. so wait, if we take proactive measures then we are to be blamed for the failings of those who decide they want to cause us physical harm because they disagree with our system? You're basically apologizing for their immoral behaviour in advance whilst simultaneously blaming us for it, which is nonsense.

If they got more radical then that is their fault, not ours.
Click to expand...

I'm not apologising for acts of violence which I utterly abhor, nor am I entirely blaming our system for this. That is a simplistic view because there are multiple factors at play. I am certain that restriction on Muslim immigration and cultural segregation could be a contributing factor to push current Muslim citizens further towards anti-west views. This is not about blaming anyone or anything, its about being pragmatic and understanding a bit of human psychology. I would probably feel angered if I was being blamed and effectively punished for the actions of complete strangers; wouldn't you? However, I guess neither of us would get angry enough to religiously justify mass murder. I don't think this is really the main reason for Islamic terrorism; the main reason is probably Islamic cultures' attempts to hang onto their culture and values in the face of continual intervention in their homelands by western powers (and you should understand that urge to hang onto a dying culture, right?). Unfortuantely, their religion is used to justify violence, like all religions. I think efforts need to be made to deradicalise Islam in the mosques (as I've already mentioned), to get it to the place Chistianity has devolved into (thankfully) and to create a safe homeland that citizens do not want to flee from.

Yeah, and what if racial bias is a natural tendency. People predominantly prefer to be with their own kind, the observational evidence clearly indicates this and there is nothing wrong with that behaviour at all! Your intellectual reasoning on this issue does not supersede innate biological programming - despite how you'd like things to be, they aren't.. you need to adjust to that fact of reality, not me adjusting to your belief on what the world should be.
Click to expand...

But humans are constantly rejecting natural impulses and behaviours; its part of the great mess we call civilisation. Some of our tendencies are less useful when you apply reason to them. IMO, racial bias is unreasonable, because science has told us that there are no major differences in the actual makeup of humans from different ethnicities. This means that an instinctive, instant racial bias is not based on anything concrete, but is based on something precognitive and a misperception of reality.

You think that this should be the way it is, but the majority of people reject this, and have to, because multiculturalism isn't going away. I mean, the British Empire started this by conquering all sorts of societies by force and for profit. Unfortunately, we now have to deal with the consequences. The way you want things to be are not the way they are and you need to adjust to this fact, not me.

Denying what we are and failing to embrace that is weakness. It's self-hatred and masochistic tendencies that you have willingly accepted in your own personal journey through academia, through modern culture and other forms of programming.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what are "we"? Are you clinging to something totally transient like contemporary cultural values and assuming that these actually mean something? Think about some superficial aspects of culture such as food. People associate British cuisine with peas (don't deny it, I know you love mushy peas) which are native to North Africa. Swiss chocolate- YUM- from a South American plant. The Italians make great Ethiopian coffee. My point here is merely that a few hundred years ago, "what we are" was something totally different and it seems you wish to apply an unnatural stasis to a culture. That is not possible.

What is British culture to you? What is it you are protecting?

You always mention self-hate, but I disregard that. There is no hate here. There is simply the absence of the false pride you are holding to. The absence of pride is not hate.
 
-=SS=- said:
Unfortunately the hammer has to come down now. Soldiers on the streets is not good enough, or a relevant show of force.. the real force needs to be proactive.

Tagging won't cut it either. We have to demonstrate we mean business or this will happen again. This is a cultural shit test and currently we're failing it.

Ban radical literature. If you access it without Home Office Approval, for journos say, then your door gets kicked in.

Monitoring is just not enough. The time for that and subtle approaches is over.
Click to expand...

Won't a lot of people object to seizing their bibles?
 
It has been revealed that an attack on the police building in Eastern Australia was co ordinated by male terrorists and terrorist sympathisers within the womens part of a mosque.

This is the only part of a mosque where cameras are not allowed to monitor.

I would think this part of a mosque anywhere is likely where terrorists hand over weapons and plans like has happened here.

So screw the rules and spy on mosques and in particular the women's area.
 
As someone else already mentioned...if the west ceased to drop bombs all over civilians on a daily basis in the ME....then maybe that would be a start ....they will always find ways to commit terror even with a Muslim ban.
 
That's a good point Ryan, uk prisons are about to introduce "specialist" wings in order to seperate islamic extremists and prevent them radicalising others.
 
Ffs Ryan :|

Sucks that this place is dominated by that sort of ridiculous dialogue these days.

zephyr said:
Security cameras are allowed in any part except the womens area. Whether they are or not is an individyal thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think this really happens in Australia. At least, I can only find reference to Pauline Hanson advocating for them.

Perhaps its not a bad idea. It seems highly invasive though. I don't think I'd support such a proposal for obvious reasons.
 
Swillow would you be happy for Isis members to be killed wherever they are, in any country?
 
^Sure, or imprisoned. I'd rather we didn't stoop to their levels though, they need to definitely be members of Isis. Don't drag innocent's into it.
 
Might have to start inconveniencing some innocent muslims to root out some of radicals.
A good Muslim wouldn't mind too much as they want the terrorists and their supporters caught and punished as much as anyone.
 
Rather than that, get them on our side so they are invested in society and will expel extremists willingly because they value a cohesive and peaceful community. At this stage, the racism and discrimination towards Muslims is working against this, and ultimately all of us. Its not causing extremism, or is not a major factor, but can you see how its not helping?
 
I think you focus too much on racists. I think most muslims in the uk now are welcome and are already "on our side"
Proper Racism was worse years ago imo,
National front, combat 18 and skinheads were much more prominent in the 80s.

What more can be done to get them on our side?

You must also consider that muslims too can be racist, if I wanted to marry a Muslim girl my family would be ok with it, if my mate wanted to marry a white girl his family would want her to convert to Islam. That doesn't seem like integrating to me.
 
swilow said:
Ffs Ryan :|

Sucks that this place is dominated by that sort of ridiculous dialogue these days.



I don't think this really happens in Australia. At least, I can only find reference to Pauline Hanson advocating for them.

Perhaps its not a bad idea. It seems highly invasive though. I don't think I'd support such a proposal for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is but that's just an inconvenience and if it means thwarting terror attacks then so be it.
 
^If cameras were in mosques, extremists would just find somewhere else to plot their global caliphate. Its a short term solution which, again, may have unforseen consequences. How loyal would you feel to a country that believes spying on you at prayer is reasonable?

Put them in churches too, might stop the abuse of children. And everywhere else too because humans cannot be trusted. :\
 
Nah fuck putting camera in mosque, put in undercover mi5 agents, specialist undercover agents to attend mosques and infiltrate and radical groups.
 
Not so sure about that. Hope so.
I think it would be a good place to start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top