Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[Coyote]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

They can and will be held indefinately without charge until such a time they are deemed a non-threat to the population of Britain's immediate safety.

See Northern Ireland Internment for sort of an example.

The British Government will issue a notice to the Council of Europe declaring that there is a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention that I posted a pdf link to in a previous post in this thread.

So it would be like this? Operation Demetrius - Wikipedia

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Rather than rounding people up on suspicion, why not make certain associations criminal as in possessing child porn? Making Jihadi movies? Having an ISIS flag. Having ISIS propoganda in your possession?

"Rather than rounding people up on suspicion, why not make certain associations criminal as in possessing child porn? Making Jihadi movies? Having an ISIS flag. Having ISIS propoganda in your possession? "

How is any of that going to stop 3,000 Radical Islamic Extremists who are on Counter Terrorism's Watch List from planning and committing further atrocities and suicide operations?

They are walking around NOW, they are ticking time bombs NOW, the authorities cannot keep track 24/7 of ALL of them NOW, the threat is NOW and time is running out NOW.

Wasn't one of the people invloved in this also involved in ISIS propoganda? It gives you a reason to arrest them.

I think you refer to the London Bridge happening as opposed to the 3,000 on Counter Terrorisms Watch List.

 

[eagle1462010]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

Considering that most that they let go joined and formed ISIS............they should have been left to ROT THERE.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

Considering that most that they let go joined and formed ISIS............they should have been left to ROT THERE.

What they said was that 1 in 5 failed. So there is still something to be learned from it.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

They can and will be held indefinately without charge until such a time they are deemed a non-threat to the population of Britain's immediate safety.

See Northern Ireland Internment for sort of an example.

The British Government will issue a notice to the Council of Europe declaring that there is a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention that I posted a pdf link to in a previous post in this thread.

So it would be like this? Operation Demetrius - Wikipedia

Yes something like that but a much cleaner operation, as if you read Operation Demetrius was a bit messy.

But as I just pointed out, this is exactly what the British Government will do:

Legal basis[edit]

The internments were initially carried out under Regulations 11 and 12 of 1956 and Regulation 10 of 1957 (the Special Powers Regulations), made under the authority of the Special Powers Act. The Detention of Terrorists Order of 7 November 1972, made under the authority of the Temporary Provisions Act, was used after direct rule was instituted.

Internees arrested without trial pursuant to Operation Demetrius could not complain to the European Commission of Human Rights about breaches of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because on 27 June 1957, the UK lodged a notice with the Council of Europe declaring that there was a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention."[10]

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

They can and will be held indefinately without charge until such a time they are deemed a non-threat to the population of Britain's immediate safety.

See Northern Ireland Internment for sort of an example.

The British Government will issue a notice to the Council of Europe declaring that there is a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention that I posted a pdf link to in a previous post in this thread.

So it would be like this? Operation Demetrius - Wikipedia

Article 15 (I) of the Convention on Human Rights, this is the Derogation Clause that will be used once again by the British Government to orchestrate Internment.

Derogation in Time of War or Other Public Emergency:

"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation,"

Here's the post I made earlier regarding the above:

Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

 

[Coyote]

Here's the problem with relying on counter terrorism watchlists for assumptions of guilt and I imagine other national intelligence agencies operate similar to FBI:

How Does the FBI Watch List Work? And Could It Have Prevented Orlando?
What’s the Criteria for Getting on the Watch List?
According to a 2013 watch list guideline produced by the Terrorist Screening Center and obtained by The Intercept, engaging in terrorism or having a direct connection to a terrorist organization is not necessary for inclusion on the list. Parents, spouses, siblings, children and “associates” of a suspected terrorist can appear on the list without any suspicion of terrorist involvement. “Irrefutable evidence” of terrorist activity and connections is also not necessary, the document states. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient, though this isn’t clearly defined.

“These lists are horribly imprecise,” a former federal prosecutor, who asked to remain anonymous, told WIRED. “They are based on rumor and innuendo, and it’s incredibly easy to get on the list and incredibly difficult to get off the list. There’s no due process for getting off the list.”

The guidelines also reveal that the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism can temporarily authorize placing entire “categories” of people on to the No-Fly and Selectee lists based on “credible intelligence” that indicates a certain category of individuals may be used to conduct an act of terrorism.

“Instead of a watch list limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” Hina Shamsi, head of the ACLU’s National Security Project, told The Intercept. “On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.”

What Is the No-Fly List?
This narrower list, derived from the terrorist watch list, includes people who haven’t done anything to warrant being arrested, yet the government deems too dangerous to allow onto commercial aircraft. Mateen reportedly did not appear on this list. The list included 2,500 individuals when Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff released the tally for the first time in 2008. Six years later, Christopher Piehota, director of the Terrorist Screening Center, told a House subcommittee it had 64,000 names on it. That sounds like a lot, but the list includes dead people and multiple versions of names.

 

[eagle1462010]

The problem with internment camps is how long are you going to hold them without charge if they've done nothing criminal? Forever? And under what conditions can they eventually be released? Any? And then what?

This is an interesting approach: The Saudi Deradicalization Experiment

Considering that most that they let go joined and formed ISIS............they should have been left to ROT THERE.

What they said was that 1 in 5 failed. So there is still something to be learned from it.

Don't let known Radical elements loose..............and then if you do.........don't blame those that told you not to do it.

Good lessons learned. How many people have now died as a result...............

 

[WEATHER53]

Nobody leaves Paris London or DC and goes to Syria or Afghanistan
For 2 months to soak up the scenery
You go there-you stay there; start with that

 

[depotoo]

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

If the current trend in Islamic terror attacks continues, candlelit vigils will soon be the number one cause of global warming.

Surely it will be US military planes going off to bomb some little children

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

Surely it will be US military planes going off to bomb some little children

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

The Philippines didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult in Marawi.

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi

"For the past two weeks the Philippines army has been fighting Islamist militants in the southern city of Marawi. So far, the conflict has killed at least 170 people, including 20 civilians, and more than 180,000 residents have fled. The BBC's South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head reports from Marawi.

For more than a week the military spokesmen have been offering the same, upbeat outlook in the embattled city of Marawi. The Philippines armed forces controls nearly all of the city, they have been saying; the black-clad militants, who so surprised them by seizing Marawi in the name of so-called Islamic State on 23 May, have taken heavy casualties, and are encircled.

The military will, of course, eventually retake the city. Even fighters happy to die for Islam cannot withstand constant bombardment indefinitely.

But nearly all of the city is still off-limits to non-military personnel."

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi - BBC News

Myanmar didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult with Rohingya Muslims.

And Myanmar's crackdown on the Muslims is very popular with the population who correctly see Islam as a threat and nearly 90% of the people in Myanmar are Buddhist, specifically they follow Theravāda Buddhism and the Buddhist Monks are assisting with the crackdown.

Theravada - Wikipedia

I have a great respect for the Buddhists and also I add for the people of Tibet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

Surely it will be US military planes going off to bomb some little children

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

No, they didn't. They did however lead the way in Libya, and Syria is a fuck up because after the Ottoman Empire fell, the French took over Syria.

However mostly they are being attacked because of Algeria. This was a part of France at one point and the French were ruthless.

This was in Paris. They are Algerians. 1961.

Paris massacre of 1961 - Wikipedia

Well, the Algerians and other Muslims as part of the French Empire could move to France itself, and they tried to make a life for themselves, but were always treated like second class citizens. The people live in ghettos and their lives aren't very good. So, France has created a different class of people, and they're angry, and some of them turn to extremism.

 

[Coyote]

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

The Philippines didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult in Marawi.

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi

"For the past two weeks the Philippines army has been fighting Islamist militants in the southern city of Marawi. So far, the conflict has killed at least 170 people, including 20 civilians, and more than 180,000 residents have fled. The BBC's South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head reports from Marawi.

For more than a week the military spokesmen have been offering the same, upbeat outlook in the embattled city of Marawi. The Philippines armed forces controls nearly all of the city, they have been saying; the black-clad militants, who so surprised them by seizing Marawi in the name of so-called Islamic State on 23 May, have taken heavy casualties, and are encircled.

The military will, of course, eventually retake the city. Even fighters happy to die for Islam cannot withstand constant bombardment indefinitely.

But nearly all of the city is still off-limits to non-military personnel."

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi - BBC News

Myanmar didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult with Rohingya Muslims.

And Myanmar's crackdown on the Muslims is very popular with the population who correctly see Islam as a threat and nearly 90% of the people in Myanmar are Buddhist, specifically they follow Theravāda Buddhism and the Buddhist Monks are assisting with the crackdown.

Theravada - Wikipedia

I have a great respect for the Buddhists and also I add for the people of Tibet.

I think the Philippines is an interesting example of how groups like ISIS can make the inroads they can. Islam has been in the Philippines a long time - it predates Catholicism, which is the majority religion. ISIS (est. very from 250 to 1200) utilize the remnants of the seperatist movements to try to gain a foothold. But Islam in the Phillippines is very different then the Middle East.

How to make sense of ISIS in the Philippines: Know the history of Muslim insurgency there

 

[frigidweirdo]

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

The Philippines didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult in Marawi.

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi

"For the past two weeks the Philippines army has been fighting Islamist militants in the southern city of Marawi. So far, the conflict has killed at least 170 people, including 20 civilians, and more than 180,000 residents have fled. The BBC's South East Asia correspondent Jonathan Head reports from Marawi.

For more than a week the military spokesmen have been offering the same, upbeat outlook in the embattled city of Marawi. The Philippines armed forces controls nearly all of the city, they have been saying; the black-clad militants, who so surprised them by seizing Marawi in the name of so-called Islamic State on 23 May, have taken heavy casualties, and are encircled.

The military will, of course, eventually retake the city. Even fighters happy to die for Islam cannot withstand constant bombardment indefinitely.

But nearly all of the city is still off-limits to non-military personnel."

Philippines conflict: Starving residents tell of terror in Marawi - BBC News

Myanmar didn't join in on Afghanistan or Iraq, yet they are having to deal with the 7th Century Satanic Death Cult with Rohingya Muslims.

And Myanmar's crackdown on the Muslims is very popular with the population who correctly see Islam as a threat and nearly 90% of the people in Myanmar are Buddhist, specifically they follow Theravāda Buddhism and the Buddhist Monks are assisting with the crackdown.

Theravada - Wikipedia

I have a great respect for the Buddhists and also I add for the people of Tibet.

If you understood the reasons for the conflict, maybe you'd have a different view. However, no doubt, this would conflict with your agenda, and so you will probably ignore it.

When the Philippines became independent in 1946, however even before this there were resettlement of Muslims from their homes. Then there was the Jabidah Massacre in 1968 which saw Moro (In Spanish if you say "que moro tienes" then this means how cheeky you are., but refers to the Moors of Spain) soldiers killed, though they don't know how many.

The Moro National Liberation Front was founded in order to gain independence for the Muslims who were being treated badly by their government. (Another case of Muslims being treated badly, and then fighting back).

The Moros didn't like being placed under foreign rule, they fought the Spanish, the Americans and the Japanese, and the Philippines is also seen as foreign rule for them.

Plenty of groups have fought against such rule, including the American colonials against the British.

 

[Coyote]

The Rohingas are an ethnic minority that are HORRIBLY mistreated by the Myanmar Buddhists. Buddhist nationalists can be just has horrible as any other religion, especially in Myanmar. I think we need to be careful not to overlook abuses because perpetrators are buddhist....

Who will help Myanmar's Rohingya? - BBC News

 

[depotoo]

Always an excuse for their barbaric behavior, in your mind, isn't there?
If you want to get technical, muslims conquered the berbers in those areas.

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

It would be nice to have wpns that seeked bad guys and only killed them, BUT REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! You can't blame us for civilian deaths when the enemy uses them as shields.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

No, they didn't. They did however lead the way in Libya, and Syria is a fuck up because after the Ottoman Empire fell, the French took over Syria.

However mostly they are being attacked because of Algeria. This was a part of France at one point and the French were ruthless.

This was in Paris. They are Algerians. 1961.

Paris massacre of 1961 - Wikipedia

Well, the Algerians and other Muslims as part of the French Empire could move to France itself, and they tried to make a life for themselves, but were always treated like second class citizens. The people live in ghettos and their lives aren't very good. So, France has created a different class of people, and they're angry, and some of them turn to extremism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Always an excuse for their barbaric behavior, in your mind, isn't there?
If you want to get technical, muslims conquered the berbers in those areas.

France did not join in on Iraq, so why are they being attacked? Simply because. There is a rhyme and reason, just not the one people like to try to blame it on.

Yeah, you can't blame the US for start wars to get cheaper oil and then wanting to bomb those that seek to defend their land against US invasions and bombings when civilians get killed, no, not at all.

Just like you can't blame terrorists in London, Paris, Manchester, Brussels, when civilians get killed, they were just getting in the way of their bombs and knives. Yeah, not their fault at all.

You need to understand that it's the target that controls whether you are a terrorist or not. If you target non-military targets for the sole purpose of scaring people you are a terrorist. If you target military combatants then you are not a terrorist.

The problem with this assessment is that if you invade a country, you're going to be destroying civilians's lives whether you want to or not. Hiding behind the "we didn't do it on purpose" doesn't work if you really set out to cause problems.

Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi police and armed forces was one of the worst things that could have happened. Possibly the intention wasn't to get civilians killed, but the reality was that many civilians got killed. More so that in these terrorist attacks.

Also, here's the problem. What is a civilian?

In the UK, the US, Belgium and France, the people vote. They vote for the President, the PM who is in charge of the military. This makes the civilians part of the process, this makes them part of the decision making process, and as such, how much are they civilians and how much are they combatants?

No, they didn't. They did however lead the way in Libya, and Syria is a fuck up because after the Ottoman Empire fell, the French took over Syria.

However mostly they are being attacked because of Algeria. This was a part of France at one point and the French were ruthless.

This was in Paris. They are Algerians. 1961.

Paris massacre of 1961 - Wikipedia

Well, the Algerians and other Muslims as part of the French Empire could move to France itself, and they tried to make a life for themselves, but were always treated like second class citizens. The people live in ghettos and their lives aren't very good. So, France has created a different class of people, and they're angry, and some of them turn to extremism.

Humans are humans. I'm not saying Muslim extremist terrorists are good or positive in anyway. I'm showing the bad side to humanity from both the Muslim terrorist side AND the US govt side.

 

[Roudy]

And probably shortly (within possibly minutes) in another thread somewhere in the Internet U-verse -- I'll be kicking Trump's butt for too much BULLYING and not enough RESULTS...

Honestly, how are people even supposed to know what is happening in this country, with this non stop mainstream negative fake news 24 / 7 barrage of Russia / Impeachment / Collaboration / Obstruction. They have literally lost their fucking minds and any journalistic ethics or objectivity.

 

[Roudy]

But the killers are usually UK citizens.

First or second generation UK citizens who's parents did not assimilate Western ideals or way of life, and brought their kids up as if they were not even living in the UK. Do you really think there is much difference between them, and those that are born abroad? Many of them have even gone abroad to complete their indoctrination, and some are getting the same on the computer. It is no longer necessary to go there. ISIS will send you encrypted instructions.

You are such a hypocrite. I see Sadiq khan getting so much shit from you knobs on here and he is the definition of assimilated. You dont give a fuck where they came from or what they believe. You just see MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's just an another example of ANY politician that feels no fire under his ass to FIX problems. No apparent REAL sense of urgency. I give him credit for "getting on message" as he did. But Trump was correct to take issue with his use of the term "No reason to be alarmed".. THAT's THE PROBLEM. You virtually need to kick some butt to GET govt to IMPROVE and INNOVATE on failed policy...

I do it all the time. To politicians of ALL types.. They DESERVE it...

I don't think it's a case of no real sense of urgency. He, and May, and others have to find a way of balancing security ether the rights and expectations of a free society. And they have to do that without creating more victims in the process.

In their zeal "to be fair" and "all inclusive" -- these foot-draggers are CAUSING the entire Muslim populations of the Free World to be suspect and harassed and bullied. Their concerns are counter-productive. Leadership needs to take a scalpel to the discussion and CALL OUT the enemy...

Kuwait just announced the same "Muslim Ban" that Trump is focused on. It's NOT just rights and expectations. And most of the Arab Peninsula have "de facto muslim bans" from the same 7 countries. But they KNOW who it is they are fighting against. And it ain't Islam..

It's the process of setting out the Top Level Goal -- before you go dicking around the edges of it. Or telling folks "to relax". You take the heat off Islam as the enemy when you can specifically FORCE yourself to name the REAL enemies. And take measures against THEM.

I heard about this first of its type anti Islamist ad campaign in Kuwait, where they have a suicide bomber about to put on a vest, and the ghosts of people, including other Muslims that were killed by suicide bombings appear to tell him this isn't real Islam etc. until he changes his mind.

In my opinion this is the most important component if Islamism is to be defeated. You have to go after the ideology, and it has to happen over there. Not sure if this is part of Trump's new anti terrorist alliance he formed on his overseas trip. If all the Muslim countries adopted this same kind of public messaging strategy, the Muslim world will eventually shun the cancer of Islamism and groups like ISIS will not be able to get to young, naive, desperate Muslims as potential recruits.

I will try to find the clip later. But it sounded very interesting and effective.

 

[Roudy]

Sadiq Khan's conference with London Bridge killer's friend | Daily Mail Online

London Bridge attacker had links to 7/7 bombing planners | Daily Mail Online

On Sunday Sadiq Khan was invited to the British Cabinet's COBRA emergency meeting, I think this as he's the Mayor of London. It would be wise if the British Cabinet only discussed the minimum with Khan present as can he be 100% trusted, read the below articles I have linked to.

Also it would be wise for MI5 to be listening in to Mayor Khan's phone etc.

Sadiq Khan has Radical Islamic Extremists in his own family:

Exposed: Sadiq Khan's family links to extremist organisation

EXCLUSIVE: Mayoral contender’s former brother-in-law took part in Trafalgar Square rally

"The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.

Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.

In the Nineties Mr Javaid took part in events in London with the extremist group Al-Muhajiroun while he was Mr Khan’s brother-in-law, having married the Labour politician’s sister in 1989.

He appeared alongside some of the country’s most notorious hate preachers, including the now banned cleric Omar Bakri, in 1997 and 1998.

Mr Javaid’s name appeared on a fatwa in 1998 calling for a “full-scale war of jihad” against Britain and the US."

- This below is Sadiq Khan's former brother in law -

Makbool Javaid speaking out against non-muslim “kufr” at a rally in Trafalgar Square in 1997

Exposed: Sadiq Khan's family links to extremist organisation

Sadiq Khan shared platform with five Islamic extremists

"Sadiq Khan shared a platform with five Islamic extremists at a political meeting where women were told to use a separate entrance, the Evening Standard can reveal.

Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London took part with an activist who has threatened “fire throughout the world”, a supporter of terror group Hamas, a preacher who backs an Islamic state and a Muslim leader accused of advocating attacks on the Royal Navy if it stopped arms being smuggled into Gaza.

Invitations said “all welcome” but made clear that women would be segregated at the door, stating: “Ladies’ entrance on Lessingham Avenue next to the snooker club.”

Also on the platform was a controversial Surrey vicar and conspiracy theorist who has claimed Israel could have been responsible for the terrorist attack on New York’s Twin Towers."

Sadiq Khan shared platform with five Islamic extremists

Is it ‘Islamophobic’ to draw attention to Sadiq Khan’s links with extremists?

Is it 'Islamophobic' to draw attention to Sadiq Khan’s links with extremists? | Coffee House

With friends like this, is Sadiq Khan fit to run London? Labour MP's dealings with Islamic extremists raise doubts over his suitability as London's next mayor

• 
  
  
  • Labour MP Sadiq Khan is hot favourite to succeed Boris Johnson as Mayor of London
  • After a funeral a few months ago, he stopped to speak to convicted terrorist Babar Ahmad
  • Ahmad has been blamed for inspiring a generation of extremists, including gang behind July 7 bombings
  • Recent stories about his dealings with Islamic extremists have raised doubts about his suitability as mayor
  • He once shared a platform with Yasser al-Siri, a convicted terrorist and associate of hate preacher Abu Qatada

Sadiq Khan's dealings with Islamic extremists raise doubts over London mayor role | Daily Mail Online

London Mayor's Ties To Extremism Call Commitment To Fighting Terror Into Question

Khan Has Been Affiliated With Organizations Tied To Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS And The Muslim Brotherhood

London Mayor's Ties To Extremism Call Commitment To Fighting Terror Into Question | Zero Hedge

What lovely people! Let's let in whole bunch more where that shit came from.