London Under Attack..

Kevin-W posted:

Mike, this thread is political, whether you like it or not. We in the West are under attack from fascists wedded to a far-right dark age religio-political ideology.

I don't disagree with that angle on the politics involved in this subject Kevin,   what I do disagree with are posts that link this thread with UK election politics.

Mike-B posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Mike, this thread is political, whether you like it or not. We in the West are under attack from fascists wedded to a far-right dark age religio-political ideology.

I don't disagree with that angle on the politics involved in this subject Kevin,   what I do disagree with are posts that link this thread with UK election politics.

The link is Theresa May.

She gave a speech outside No. 10, as PM concerning the yesterday’s terrorist attack.

The second half of the speech was blatant electioneering.

Very thoughtful post Hook. Hopefully measures such as internment will not be necessary,

However, the signs that we were headed for a whole heap of trouble here in the UK (and in Europe) have been around for some 30 years.

It is perhaps all a bit late now but I think one of things that has to be done is cutting out this cancer at its very root. This involves some tough measures, but necessary ones - banning Wahhabist (Saudi) and Deobandi (Pakistani) foreign funding of mosques in the UK; abolition of madrassahs (and indeed all faith schools); prosecution of imams who allow hate preachers to give sermons in their mosques; forcing the likes of Google and Facebook to face up to their responsibilities as publishers and broadcasters (I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering how on earth YouTube and FB are both full of ISIS propaganda videos, beheadings, hate sermons full of incitements against the 'kafir', apostates, gays, women etc); encourage dissenting and reformist Muslim voices to speak out; offer help to apostates and critics of the creeed; make Saudi Arabia and Qatar into international pariahs, until they stop funding global religious extremism; stop meddling in other countries' affairs unless threatened directly; encourage freedom of thought and expression in all its forms, with nothing off-limit - especially in universities.

The regressive left also needs to examine itself - its decades-long alliance with Islamism has been disastrous, both for progressive values and for the wider, more liberal left.

Most of all, stop pussyfooting around Islam. It needs to be reformed or, consigned to the dustbin of history, like communism. Remember, the problem isn't so much with what Musliims believe, but with what Islam teaches.

Leave it out Fatcat,   I suspect your reason for starting this discussion is simply because it's Theresa May & she's a tory.   I suggest you move this to the Labour thread.

Will do.

Hook asks some good questions.  For what it's worth, I don't think a massive increase in police numbers would make much difference to preventing these sorts of attacks.  

I do though think more should be done by the likes of YouTube, Facebook etc to scan and censure the hatred that this feeds on. I don't care if these organisation say they are just 'platforms' - the newspapers, and broadcasters wouldn't carry such material.

Also, I'd be happy for the GCHQ/MI5/MI6 to hold the encryptions key to enable them to monitor the internet and mobile and social media use so that they might better detect these odious people.  I know some will say, that's the thin end of the wedge, but we're not living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet empire, and I think most people would trust these authorities to use such power proportionately and only for the purposes specified. Indeed, if this power was legislated for, it would be possible to make it a criminal offence to mis-use such powers.

MDS posted:

Hook asks some good questions.  For what it's worth, I don't think a massive increase in police numbers would make much difference to preventing these sorts of attacks.

Police numbers wouldn't prevent attacks, but would ensure there are sufficient numbers to respond to them.  As was commented above ... what happens when Nottingham or Leicester is attacked ... would there be an 8 minute response time then?

I do though think more should be done by the likes of YouTube, Facebook etc to scan and censure the hatred that this feeds on. I don't care if these organisation say they are just 'platforms' - the newspapers, and broadcasters wouldn't carry such material.

I don't disagree ... but it's not up to Facebook to say what is extremist material. That leads quickly to corporate (rather than state) censorship.  They need to respond quicker to complaints rather than be pro-active, but also put algorithms in place which will prevent reposting of material.

Also, I'd be happy for the GCHQ/MI5/MI6 to hold the encryptions key to enable them to monitor the internet and mobile and social media use so that they might better detect these odious people.  I know some will say, that's the thin end of the wedge, but we're not living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet empire, and I think most people would trust these authorities to use such power proportionately and only for the purposes specified. Indeed, if this power was legislated for, it would be possible to make it a criminal offence to mis-use such powers.

Who decicides what is 'misusing' the powers though?  Happy for Amber Rudd (as Home Secretary) to decide?  

And what about Mossad?  China state intelligence?  FSB?  If once government has then all governments would want them - it inevitably wouldn't be restricted to GCHQ, NSA and the other "good guys".

And if there were decryption keys, then they would inevitably fall into criminal hands.  Look at how leaky the FBI / CIA were over intelligence shared over Manchester attacks.

Next who decides what is extremist?  Today we are talking about Muslims.  What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? 

Sorry but the thin end of the wedge quickly becomes thick!

And anyway, as soon as What's App, et al. gets a back door, new "dark web" software will inevitably be created.  They won't provide their decryption keys!

As nobody seems to know what to do I suggest asking Donald Trump what he suggests and go along with that. 

Drewy posted:

As nobody seems to know what to do I suggest asking Donald Trump what he suggests and go along with that. 

Even better... ask what Trump would do and do anything BUT that!

You speak a lot on the political threads on here but honestly none of it is worth reading. 

Are you a politician?

Eloise posted:

 

 

 

Next who decides what is extremist? What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? CARE TO EXPLAIN

 

Malaka posted:

Eloise posted: 

Next who decides what is extremist? What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin?

 CARE TO EXPLAIN

Exactly as I said ... who decides what is extremism?  

Homosexuality and gay marriage is legal in this country ... so Christian organisations which preach against it ... are they extremist?  That's just an example... but as soon as you start defining something's as extremist there is the inevitable "creep".

This was specifically in terms of allowing access to encrypted communications.  What communications are you going to allow to be decrypted?  

(Interesting how you take what I consider to be the least important part of my message to comment on!)

Eloise posted:

Malaka posted:

Eloise posted: 

Next who decides what is extremist? What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin?

 CARE TO EXPLAIN

Exactly as I said ... who decides what is extremism?  

Homosexuality and gay marriage is legal in this country ... so Christian organisations which preach against it ... are they extremist?  That's just an example... but as soon as you start defining something's as extremist there is the inevitable "creep".

This was specifically in terms of allowing access to encrypted communications.  What communications are you going to allow to be decrypted?  

(Interesting how you take what I consider to be the least important part of my message to comment on!)

since me being Orthodox Christian and I'm not a "protected class" I will be the bigger person today

Malaka posted:

since me being Orthodox Christian and I'm not a "protected class" I will be the bigger person today

No one is protected ... but neither should anyone be percecuted.

Eloise posted:

Malaka posted:

since me being Orthodox Christian and I'm not a "protected class" I will be the bigger person today

No one is protected ... but neither should anyone be percecuted.

I beg to differ.....but then again I live in the United States

Malaka posted:

Eloise posted:

Malaka posted:

since me being Orthodox Christian and I'm not a "protected class" I will be the bigger person today

No one is protected ... but neither should anyone be percecuted.

I beg to differ.....but then again I live in the United States

Just to be clear ... I wasn't suggesting that (for example) anti-homosexual views should be considered extremist views or somehow people who hold those views should be punished for them.  I was suggesting that once you start declaring certain views as extremist then you are starting on a path which can lead to who knows what being outlawed.  It's a form of thought police / thought crime situation.  It can start with the best of intentions, but in any round Uk the innocent get caught up.

Perhaps a better example... would you accept monitoring / criminalising all animal rights supporters because a small minority have committed terrorist type attacks on research labs?

Eloise posted:

Next who decides what is extremist?  Today we are talking about Muslims.  What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? 

 

Let me ask you a question: what, precisely is illegal about saying that homosexuality is a sin? It's a point of view - which I, and I suspect, millions others, happen to disagree with vehemently. But in a free society, it's permissable, even desirable, to be able to express unpleasant views openly.

It only becomes illegal, or a problem for society, when Christians, Muslims, neo-nazis or other groups start inciting violence against homosexuals: "Kill the homos!", starting up 'queer-bashing' posses, advocating discrimination against gay-run businesses or organisations, or individuals. This is against the law, and quite rightly so.

Kevin-W posted:

Eloise posted:

Next who decides what is extremist?  Today we are talking about Muslims.  What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? 

 

Let me ask you a question: what, precisely is illegal about saying that homosexuality is a sin? It's a point of view - which I, and I suspect, millions others, happen to disagree with vehemently. But in a free society, it's permissable, even desirable, to be able to express unpleasant views openly.

It only becomes illegal, or a problem for society, when Christians, Muslims, neo-nazis or other groups start inciting violence against homosexuals: "Kill the homos!", starting up 'queer-bashing' posses, advocating discrimination against gay-run businesses or organisations, or individuals. This is against the law, and quite rightly so.

Kevin ... like Malaka I think you are taking my comment out of context to twist it.  However I accept my comment was perhaps misguided and hyperbole...

As for the statement you quoted it was in reference to justification for decrypting and monitoring communications ... so my response ... as you say it becomes illegal when groups start to advocate violence... so we better monitor the more moderate groups incase they motivate such groups?  If you support the monitoring and decryption of communications from hard line but non-violent Islamic preachers for the same reason it's the logical next step.  How about peaceful animal rights activists ... they might be in league with other more violent factions?  Perhaps everyone who ever made a racist comment in the heat of the moment ... they might motivate a new-nazi right wing group - shall we make it legal to monitor them?

dayjay posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Again, one has to take one's hat off to the police - within eight minutes of the attack the three suspects were all "neutralised", to use the jargon.

If they hadn't responded so quickly, the carnage could have been much worse.

A damned good job they have not yet been stopped from shooting to kill.  If this happened in a local town and not a major city the damage would be immense because there is no way armed police would get to a similar incident in sufficient numbers where I live.

They want to scare people in the cities, the big name cities...NYC, Paris, London...the centers of population, media and GDP.

Murdering a few people in Trees East, North Dakota doesn't get headlines, and recruitment. This is urban insurgency, and it can't be stopped once the insurgents are inside without cordon and search.  Their smaller numbers and resources requires well-planned, and low-cost strikes that have maximum impact.  

Let's say I'm some kind of bad guy...I'm thinking of doing something bad...but I'm not quite there yet, I'm scared and the government is so powerful.  The flagship elects a Muslim Mayor...well wait a minute, heck yeah now I'm emboldened!  Our murderous cult has made a small crack in the dam...and the right thing for many of these cockroaches will be to pour through the crack. 

Another analogy would be in football...your team (#32 seed) is down 2-0 against the #1 seed at 87 minutes...everyone is tired and expecting defeat.  Someone on your team scores a goal.  You've been in the country having many babies with many mothers for years like your friends, but now you are emboldened to go meet your 72 virgins.

As a dumb American, who voted for Trump, a conservative Navy father...I've seen the first terrorist attacks ever on US soil from Islamists.  During the Obama administration they became routine, and were usually labelled "Workplace Violence."  Nightclubs, Military Bases, etc...it became a monthly thing. 

Listen to the smooth voice that tells you "It's just part of living in the big city." 

There are people that want to integrate, and people that want to burn it down.  The politicians, whom we vote for, decides who comes and who goes.  In the USA some of us wonder why people on no-fly lists, who can't own a firearm (when everyone else can legally), shouldn't be in our country.  People who've been watched by intelligence and FBI multiple times...they get to stay and end up being the guy that pulls the trigger a few years later.  It doesn't even take guns, you can use knives and trucks too.

The sad thing is I hear the people of interest are in the tens of thousands even in the UK...there are so many that just might do it tomorrow, but we can't be sure which ones.  Therefore, get those off the island.  Anyone that wants to tell me some better way please do...I've got several hundred years of history behind me--much of it is well-known and its happening all around us right now.

The internet is full of garbage, my dad always said "Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear."  Well, I believe stuff that's happening in my country, real stuff.  Real bad guys...real dead people...within the borders.  Not talk, not internet stuff...not politicians changing the vocabulary to subdue the population while they create GDP and votes with imported slaves.

It's probably the Russians doing it all.

SITG

Kevin-W posted:

Eloise posted:

Next who decides what is extremist?  Today we are talking about Muslims.  What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? 

 

Let me ask you a question: what, precisely is illegal about saying that homosexuality is a sin? It's a point of view - which I, and I suspect, millions others, happen to disagree with vehemently. But in a free society, it's permissable, even desirable, to be able to express unpleasant views openly.

It only becomes illegal, or a problem for society, when Christians, Muslims, neo-nazis or other groups start inciting violence against homosexuals: "Kill the homos!", starting up 'queer-bashing' posses, advocating discrimination against gay-run businesses or organisations, or individuals. This is against the law, and quite rightly so.

its illegal to say on the Naim forums and in the USA because of protected class Im off to happy hour and god bless the Unite States of America

Yes, we have actually hit many of the 1984 milestones in 2017...throw in some Brave New World...The Time Machine...stir in The 5th Element, bake on 325F for 15 years, and you have the Merkel Obama Clinton's dream.  Failing that, Soros gets richer.

The words appear to be English, but I'm struggling to understand some of the contributions penned on this, and other threads by contributors based in the USA. Must be a culture thing (same applies to many films, when the added problems of pronunciation and enunciation are added to the mix).

Timmo1341 posted:

The words appear to be English, but I'm struggling to understand some of the contributions penned on this, and other threads by contributors based in the USA. Must be a culture thing (same applies to many films, when the added problems of pronunciation and enunciation are added to the mix).

 

it must also be a cultural thing not to have good dental hygiene and bad cuisine and Im struggling to understand why 

Eloise posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Eloise posted:

Next who decides what is extremist?  Today we are talking about Muslims.  What about Christians who promote homosexuality as a sin? 

 

Let me ask you a question: what, precisely is illegal about saying that homosexuality is a sin? It's a point of view - which I, and I suspect, millions others, happen to disagree with vehemently. But in a free society, it's permissable, even desirable, to be able to express unpleasant views openly.

It only becomes illegal, or a problem for society, when Christians, Muslims, neo-nazis or other groups start inciting violence against homosexuals: "Kill the homos!", starting up 'queer-bashing' posses, advocating discrimination against gay-run businesses or organisations, or individuals. This is against the law, and quite rightly so.

Kevin ... like Malaka I think you are taking my comment out of context to twist it.  However I accept my comment was perhaps misguided and hyperbole...

As for the statement you quoted it was in reference to justification for decrypting and monitoring communications ... so my response ... as you say it becomes illegal when groups start to advocate violence... so we better monitor the more moderate groups incase they motivate such groups?  If you support the monitoring and decryption of communications from hard line but non-violent Islamic preachers for the same reason it's the logical next step.  How about peaceful animal rights activists ... they might be in league with other more violent factions?  Perhaps everyone who ever made a racist comment in the heat of the moment ... they might motivate a new-nazi right wing group - shall we make it legal to monitor them?

Eloise - for me there's a huge difference between monitoring and criminalising.  The latter needs to be tightly defined in legislation. Provided GCHQ etc operate under strict controls about what they can reveal and to whom e.g. protecting my privacy, I'd be very relaxed about them monitoring what I do and say online, what I say in txts and so on (pretty boring stuff, I'm sure).  I would draw the parallel to the wide-spread use of CCTV in the UK these days. I've got used to being 'caught on camera' pretty much anywhere outside of home these days.  If that passive surveillance prevents and detects some crimes, I think that's a good thing. It keeps me and my loved ones safe. Doing something similar in cyber-space seems to me a natural extension in response to today's challenge of terrorism.  

MDS posted:

Eloise - for me there's a huge difference between monitoring and criminalising.  The latter needs to be tightly defined in legislation. Provided GCHQ etc operate under strict controls about what they can reveal and to whom e.g. protecting my privacy, I'd be very relaxed about them monitoring what I do and say online, what I say in txts and so on (pretty boring stuff, I'm sure).  I would draw the parallel to the wide-spread use of CCTV in the UK these days. I've got used to being 'caught on camera' pretty much anywhere outside of home these days.  If that passive surveillance prevents and detects some crimes, I think that's a good thing. It keeps me and my loved ones safe. Doing something similar in cyber-space seems to me a natural extension in response to today's challenge of terrorism.  

MDS ... to my thinking the problem is that (from a practical point as much as anything) you either have to say encryption is fair game for anyone; or no-one is allowed encryption.  There can't be a middle ground.  So okay ... what you write is boring texts, etc.  What about (for example) Glenn Greenwald and other investigative journalists.  How about lawyers working for human rights abuses around the world.  You would be opening ALL those to being read.

You say "GCHQ operate under strict controls" ... but once there is a backdoor to WhatsApp for GCHQ and NSA ... it will be demanded by Mossad, FSB and China State Intelligence too.  You can't close that door for some!  The decryption will inevitably find its way into the hands of criminals too.  Given GCHQ's past record can you also confidently say that they will stick to the strict controls too?  At a minimum oversight must be in the hands of the courts not politicians.

And once any legislation is in place, new groups will be added to the prescribed list with very little oversight as its just secondary legislation.  Its debatable already if some of the organisations on the prescribed list are there legitimately already - but thats all right they are generally Muslim / Islamic groups so no one cares.  

The whole debate ignores the fact that if you compromise What'sApp (as an example) it will just drive the criminal element to "more secure" services on the "dark-net".

Its all very well to talk about how the internet shouldn't be a hiding ground for terrorists.  But I've not heard any politician talk in a way which gives me any confidence that they understand even 1/10th of the issues involved.  Its just rhetoric and passing the blame!

The difference between CCTV and what is proposed monitoring the internet is that CCTV monitors what you are doing, monitoring the internet is monitoring what people are thinking.