Don't worry ... if you were ever accused of thought crime it would undoubtedly be thrown out for lack of evidence.nino_savatte said:Silly me, of course it is.
Lock terror suspects up indefinitely, say police
- Thread starter laptop
- Start date
Where did I say it did? I was simply explaining why senior police officers (and others) my be suggesting various new / different ways of dealing with terrorist threats.TAE said:
Where did I say we were. Please don't imply that I am posting things which I am not.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Apart from career development, what's the real practical difference between suicide bombers and conventional attacks a la the IRA?
Alright, planes and cars - they stand out as different, but they're not common either. Otherwise it's a toss up between it being harder to recruit, or - IMO marginally - harder to say leave a bag or van somewhere and get away unharmed.
I really don't see that, despite the hyperbole (not yours), the face of terrorism and counter terrorism has drastically changed.
Alright, planes and cars - they stand out as different, but they're not common either. Otherwise it's a toss up between it being harder to recruit, or - IMO marginally - harder to say leave a bag or van somewhere and get away unharmed.
I really don't see that, despite the hyperbole (not yours), the face of terrorism and counter terrorism has drastically changed.
Yossarian said:
I've stopped reading the papers here mate, and don't have a clue any more what's happening unless someone tells me. I've had my fill of all news, and if i stop coming here (urban), then i'll really be clueless about the world and its madness.
And that leaves for a far healthier and more positive lifestyle. I shall just be mindful that the movie of madness is playing out, and that i'm not a spectator. Fighting what i can't change is no longer an option for me. I've officially given up!
detective-boy said:And imaginary.
Yes, you are a thought policeman. You have climbed inside my head and decided what it's thinking. Luckily i'm out of your physical reach.
While certain thinking is not actually a crime (yet), the outcome of thinking it and speaking it is still problematical for the sane humans that are left.
So, er, not a "suicide bombing of this type" then.chymaera said:
Thanks for that.
Well, for a start, all the evidence you get from the bomb (fingerprints, DNA, tracing components and getting descriptions, CCTV footage ...) and which helps identify the bomber is ... er ... pretty useless as a starter for ten to conduct subsequent proactive investigations ....mauvais said:
(There are lots more practical differences in terms of how susceptible they are to investigation but I suspect the above one will suffice to make the point as you are probably thinking only of the fucking great big bang ... in which there is little practical difference (other than an ability to get into places situations where a non-suicide bomber would have great difficulty)
Don't underestimate yourself ...fela fan said:
Ah, that must be why detention without conviction was ruled unlawful a couple of years ago. That must be why Control Orders have been repeatedly struck down by the Courts as being excessively intrusive.fela fan said:
Thank you for pointing that out ...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:Ah yes. That campaign which was well-known for it's, er, suicide bombings ...
You find me one example of an IRA suicide bombing of the type we saw on 7 July and I'll accept that there is absolutely nothing new about the current threat at all. You'll notice I'm not holding my breath.
FFS, suicide bombings are not germane to this discussion and besides how more dangerous is a suicide bomber to an ordinary bomber? A bomb, regardless of its method of delivery, will kill a number of people. I think you're engaging in a wee bit of cultural relativism in order to apologise for the goverment's extremely reactive response to 'terror'. It's weak but only to be expected from a former copper...you're not exactly top of the league when it comes to independent thought or intelligence.
I expect the usual half-baked and agry reply from you. So, tell you what, save it. I can't be arsed with your tirades and your rants.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:
Says the former flatfoot. The police aren't exactly known for their intelligence - are they? Pot-kettle-black, dimwit.
nino_savatte said:
For the general public a hell of a lot more dangerous. A bomber who plans to get away alive seriously restricts their choice of target, type of bomb and method of detonation.
Thus far we have been "lucky" the suicide bombers have been unable to construct an efficient bomb or the death and injury toll would have been a hell of a lot higher. I don't expect that situation to last.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
chymaera said:
I don't agree. The IRA bombings of the 1970's (Guildford and Birmingham) killed roughly as many as the "7/7" bombings.
I can't help thinking that a great deal of cultural relativism is being employed in order to paint an even grimmer picture and thus rationalise even more terror legislation.
Or to read the thread, and the context of posts properly. Clearly.nino_savatte said:
Why don't you try it sometime ...
nino_savatte said:
I am in no doubt, that terrorism is being used as an excuse, for repressive legislation. That however is a seperate issue to being vigilant on a personal basis for self protection from suicide bombers.
The threat is real, terrorism has been a real threat for 50 years with little in the way of a break.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:
I read the thread, you fucking dimwit. Though it's rich that you should tell me to "read the thread" when you have a penchant for misreading and misrepresenting other people's posts.
On your bike, flatoot.
untethered
For industry & decency
We have more to fear from foreign cultural influences than from bombers, suicide or otherwise.
That starts with the Americans.
That starts with the Americans.
Despite the fact that I do not engage in random abuse against posters just on the basis of their previous behaviour - in each instance it is in response to comments like these (As George Galloway was quoted as saying today - I am not a punchbag, if you hit me I will retaliate) - I have been asked by editor not to encourage those who seek to taunt me into a response.nino_savatte said:
Perhaps you may wish to desist from such provocative, prejudiced abuse ("flatfoot", "dimwit") as well.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
chymaera said:
In which case, the true causes are being ignored and only the symptoms are being dealt with. The IRA eventually stopped its bombing campaign when they were brought into the peace process.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:
Nah, you're singularly incapable of proper discussion and what I've noticed with you is that you respond in this way to posters who don't support your authoritarian position on a variety of issues.
I'll desist using words like "flatfoot" and "dimwit" when you agree to become more civil. Until that time, "dimwit" and "flatfoot" it is. I have the right to retaliate to...don't forget that.
You ignore the point I made earlier (mainly, I suspect, because you simply saw my name and launched into a prejudiced tirade, as is your wont). It is not the effect of the suicide bombing as compared with a "traditional" bombing which is the issue - it is the differences which exist in relation to prevention, reactive and proactive investigation. Just as there are differences in proactive and reactive investigation when dealing with a belief-system such as Al Queda as opposed to an organisation (a pseudo-militaristic one, at that) like the IRA or the UDA.nino_savatte said:
It's flatfoot, not flatoot. You really should try and maintain the ability to spell, even when you are ranting uncontrollably. And don't let the spittle get into the keyboard, either - fucks them up something rotten.nino_savatte said:
Post reportednino_savatte said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:
You seem to have a very limited vocabulary; it would seem that the only word that you have to use, by way of reply, is "prejudiced".
You're the one who is "prejudiced" and you're paranoid as this demonstrates.
You have a problem with discussing anything in a civilised fashion. In fact, you tend to react this way to most posters. I think that's rather telling...that and your rather limited vocabulary.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
detective-boy said:
Really? I'll report your posts too.
There is plenty of evidence of your abusive posts. You might want to consider that.
Similar threads
