Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Limpy]

Thanks HB - I did try to pick my words carefully.
Not easy, the sweary words were the ones which came easily.


CLKD "How do you feel if insulted? Really, deeply, inside ......."
However I feel when insulted does not give me the right to go around slaughtering people - it just doesn't. That's why we have laws.

[Joyce]

Lots going on at the moment in Paris.

Like HB says we need to stand up to these people. Limpy totally agree!

[honeybun]

A big ship and a one way ticket springs to mind to be honest.


Let them have what they want a long long way away.

Limpy I agree, being insulted does not give anyone the right to kill.

As for an eye for an eye.....really....I thought civilised people had gone beyond that.


Honeyb
X

[CLKD]

Apparently Honeybun - not ............ and most humans would rise above retaliation in such a manner.  Apparently one of these had already served time in France for related activities  ........... I agree, a large ship in the middle of the Roaring Forties ..... where it's either absolutely still or pitching and tossing.  That won't happen either ...........

[CLKD]

Sieges over ……….. 

[Joyce]

Over, but not forever as bound to be attacks elsewhere. Can only hope that counter terrorism guys are on the ball.

[Rowan]

Just read this in the Daily Mail this morning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html

[rosebud57]

It's not really as simple as that.  You have to decide what is more important to you. a) Individual freedom or b) Public security.  Public security conducted at a low scale such as CTV cameras and stop and search powers, or at a high level, eg. arrest without trial and torture. Or somewhere inbetween. The problem is who decides where on this scale the defence of public safety should be. Will it be us?  Will it be the government or the security services? and where is the protection for the innocent/wrongly accused. 

There is a lot to think about and I would be careful of looking to publications like the 'Daily Wail' for information or direction on how to proceed with this complicated and very important matter.   

[honeybun]

I'm really not sure that anyone knows what to do for the best. What I do know is that something has to be done to prevent these things happening over and over again.
There is no negotiating with these people who target others who go against their religion.

If it means that the security services need more powers then so be it. The government of the day has to decide how best to protect its citizens by whatever means they can. If that means we are all watched a little mire closely then that's fine with me. It's a lot better than the alternative I think.


Honeyb
x

[Rowan]

I think it was an intelligent and reasonable article and quoted the  Director General of the Security Service, Andrew Parker

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/who-we-are/staff-and-management/director-general/speeches-by-the-director-general/director-generals-speech-on-terrorism-technology-and-accountability.html

I don't agree that with Daily Mail bashing, considering its the best selling paper in Britain.

It has its share of daft articles like most newspapers, but it has some excellent political journalists.

I don't mind how high the level security is in Britain and worldwide is if it  can  protect us from the fear and atrocities of terrorism.

[rosebud57]

Leaving it to the government is fine, if they are relatively benign and you think you can trust them.  How do you know this?  The CIA have recently be found guilty of torture.

But what if you have a government like Argentina in the 1970's and 1980's who 'disappeared' 30,000 of their own citizens in the name of security.

I'm not against increased security.  I'm just trying to show how difficult it is to decided 'how', 'what level' and 'who has responsibility', and most important 'what are the safeguards' 

The dilemma is that  protection can reduce our  freedoms, which is just what the terrorists are trying to do.

As for the Daily Mail they produce far too much  emotive speculation and supposition rather than real news for my liking (that's why their are always in court for getting it wrong).  The media is very powerful and therefore potentially dangerous.  I try to vary the newspapers I read and the opinions they have, and make up my own mind.   

[Joyce]

Having been through airports recently, they've certainly upped the security there.  However, that doesn't cover those who are possibly living amongst the general population. This is where most of the current terror attacks are.  As hubby says they've piled lots of money into airport body scanners etc, but these terrorists are on the ground.  There is no doubt something will happen sooner or later here, as Max Hastings said in his report.

On Thursday, the director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, made a rare speech, warning it was almost inevitable that an attack in this country would get through sooner or later. ‘Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know that we cannot hope to stop everything,' he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html#ixzz3OPrT2CBe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Rowan]

"I'm not against increased security.  I'm just trying to show how difficult it is to decided 'how', 'what level' and 'who has responsibility', and most important 'what are the safeguards'  "

Sorry but I don't think we can afford the luxury of that anymore.

[rosebud57]

Sorry Silverlady, to my mind that means the terrorists have won.  We would be no better than them.

Just been listening to 'From my own correspondent' on BBC radio 4.  Its very informative about what is happening re this question around the world.  Well worth a listen on iplayer.

[rosebud57]

What would be more affected is to stop terrorists, such as the ones in Paris, becoming disaffected.  This means making a serious effort to tackle 'social injustice'.  The level of social injustice experienced by ethnic minorities in France, and Paris in particular (especially in relation to muslims) is huge.  This make a fertile picking ground for terrorist groups to recruit.  One of the dangers at the moment is reprisal attacks on innocent people. 

The whole situation is complex and wide ranging and affects us all.