ISLAMIC TERROR ATTACK FOILED on Paris bound train

Original post by Lady Comstock

And therefore the substantial hole in your logic shall also remain.

Truth be told, I didn't even read all of it and I'm not going to back and do it now.

If you are of the opinion that there is a substantial hole, well, I'll leave you to it to play in the field with your strawman, alone.

Not if you're sentenced as a dangerous offender, which he almost certainly would be.

Yes, after he's committed a crime (like now)...

It should be if he poses a danger to the public.

Had he not acted but held views, would you still remand him indefinitely in custody?

He may have been in this country: preparing for acts of terrorism, attempted murder, etc. As to your second question, I absolutely think he should have been; you aren't classified as 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services for pirating music...

I didn't realize there was a crime that got you jailed for being "potentially dangerous" for simply holding some views which the government has decide are unpleasant.

Both.

So Islamists should be banned from standing for elections in their respective countries (i,e: in the Middle East)?

Reply 82

Original post by Scott.

They've massacred lots of people. They're scum. One man would have killed hundreds of innocent people. Just shoot him. Why bother with a trial. He wouldn't be found innocent by a jury. Even so, why risk the reasonable doubt?

Because we are trying to show the world that we are just, fair and reasonable and IS are not?

Reply 83

Ciel.

21

Original post by The one ed

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/21/two-us-military-attacked-paris-bound-train/
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-21/three-injured-after-shots-fired-on-high-speed-train-to-paris/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france

Off duty US marines luckily took the terrorist out before anyone had died. Had they not been there, countless women, men and children would have been killed. Oh and guess what, he is of North African origin, no doubt a newly arrived migrant.

He was armed and out to kill.

So lefties, your support of bringing everyone into Europe is bringing ISIS affiliates to our shores, the blood of victims is on your hands, never forget it.

A significant part of the immigrants who practice islam are goddamn trojan horses, some people won't realize it til it'll be too late. Mark my words.

Reply 84

The one ed

OP

Original post by Reformed

well to the average subject they focuss on in the muslim community, that load of rubbish may be enough to reel them in. terrorists are rarely bright enough to question the bs propagand they are being feed. ERRM2 is not used to speaking to people that will actually call him on his bs

Surely errm2 is Muslim, how anyone can doubt it is beyond me and in regards to its relevance, it forms the whole basis of his opinion, no Muslim has ever been known to question their ideology or its moral legitimacy (something absolutely necessary for debates and philosophical conversation) so he should really just say it out loud.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 85

Original post by Lady Comstock

Even if they did, how does that affect my argument in that post that such acts would still occur regardless of conflicts abroad?

As far as I am aware, attacks abroad had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo so I don't see how that would be brought up.

I was making the point that Charlie Hebdo did have an agenda of some sort, which was to consistently and continually attack certain groups in French Society...

Reply 86

holmes221

18

Seems like theres an attack every week now. We will have armed security on every transportation

Reply 87

Scott.

2

Original post by Errm2

Because we are trying to show the world that we are just, fair and reasonable and IS are not?

I don't think the world would see it unreasonable for a person who was going to commit something like that as to not have a trial and a swift execution.

Reply 88

Reformed

Original post by Errm2

So Islamists should be banned from standing for elections in their respective countries (i,e: in the Middle East)?

probably , because an islamist doesnt beleive in the right to elections ( it isnt islamic) ppl suspect they simply use it to seize power and never let go ( like hitler did)

Reply 89

Original post by Scott.

I don't think the world would see it unreasonable for a person who was going to commit something like that as to not have a trial and a swift execution.

It would be seen as hypocritical, at the very least.

Are we hypocrites?

Reply 90

Original post by holmes221

Seems like theres an attack every week now. We will have armed security on every transportation

If I had some spare cash, I'd put it all into defense contractors and security companies.

I'd make a killing...

Reply 91

Scott.

2

Original post by Errm2

It would be seen as hypocritical, at the very least.

Are we hypocrites?

Depends on the circumstances.

Reply 92

Lady Comstock

Original post by Errm2

Yes, after he's committed a crime (like now)...

Have you not heard of preparatory crimes?

Had he not acted but held views, would you still remand him indefinitely in custody?

You are not classified as 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services for posting a few conservative posts on an Internet forum. Given what he has done, do you honestly think his behaviour or the views he communicated were fluffy? I certainly would remand him indefinitely in custody if he espoused views that suggested he was a danger to the public.

I didn't realize there was a crime that got you jailed for being "potentially dangerous" for simply holding some views which the government has decide are unpleasant.

Again, given what he did and the fact that people aren't considered 'potentially dangerous' for trivial things, he should have been arrested for inciting terrorism, murder, etc.

So Islamists should be banned from standing for elections in their respective countries (i,e: in the Middle East)?

If I could enforce that, then yes, as Islamists would naturally seek to punish homosexuality and apostacy with death, which I consider unacceptable harm.

The BNP would become a proscribed organisation, let alone be allowed to stand for elections, if they suddenly adopted policies advocating the execution of ethnic minorities.

Reply 93

Original post by Scott.

Depends on the circumstances.

The circumstance that we are currently discussing (murdering someone without a trial, let alone a fair one)...

Reply 94

Original post by Reformed

probably , because an islamist doesnt beleive in the right to elections ( it isnt islamic) ppl suspect they simply use it to seize power and never let go ( like hitler did)

You have far too many contradictions in your logic to hold a worthwhile discussion.

Reply 95

Lady Comstock

Original post by Errm2

As far as I am aware, attacks abroad had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo so I don't see how that would be brought up.

It was clearly brought up because the poster I responded to suggested that the end of conflicts in places such as Israel, Afghanistan, etc. might lead to the end of terrorism in the West. I said that the Charlie Hebdo incident shows that this is not the case, as that had nothing to do with such conflicts.

I was making the point that Charlie Hebdo did have an agenda of some sort, which was to consistently and continually attack certain groups in French Society...

How is that relevant to the above?

Reply 96

Reformed

Original post by Errm2

You have far too many contradictions in your logic to hold a worthwhile discussion.

regardless, we can all see the parralels to hitlers doctrine and those of islamists.

id suggest there are two types - the vehement directly murder -inspiring islamist, maybe al zawahiri ) and the more subtle islamist, perhaps with a law degree form the west, careful with their words so as not to self-incriminate, like say anjem chowdury.

you are a law student too right ? you avoid answering truthfully so i must assume this

Reply 97

Scott.

2

Original post by Errm2

The circumstance that we are currently discussing (murdering someone without a trial, let alone a fair one)...

Don't look at it as murder. Look at it as a state execution.

The fact he was going to do something so extreme I think means that he should have every single right stripped away from him.

We wouldn't give a pitbull a trial if it killed a toddler. It would just be put down. So should this person.

Reply 98

Original post by Lady Comstock

Have you not heard of preparatory crimes?

I have.

You are not classified as 'potentially dangerous' by the intelligence services for posting a few conservative posts on an Internet forum. Given what he has done, do you honestly think his behaviour or the views he communicated were fluffy? I certainly would remand him indefinitely in custody if he espoused views that suggested he was a danger to the public.

So he hasn't committed any crimes (forget about preparatory crimes for the moment) and you'd still render him in indefinite custody?

Again, given what he did and the fact that people aren't considered 'potentially dangerous' for trivial things, he should have been arrested for inciting terrorism, murder, etc.

He probably acted alone.

By the way, if he was classified as "potentially dangerous", wouldn't there be an agent following him or something?

If I could enforce that, then yes, as Islamists would naturally seek to punish homosexuality and apostacy with death, which I consider unacceptable harm.

Even though their decision will not affect you in any shape, manner or form?

The BNP would become a proscribed organisation, let alone be allowed to stand for elections, if they suddenly adopted policies advocating the execution of ethnic minorities.

A comparable example. How.....quaint.

Reply 99