It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surely Only Way To Prevent Terror Attacks is By Focusing on the Potential Perpetrators

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm just glad to see that you didn't even deny my scrapbooking comment.





posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Semidemigod

How is that really any different than the North Korean law that requires the death of anyone related to a political dissident?


It's not. They even included the "three generations" rule, too.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm just glad to see that you didn't even deny my scrapbooking comment.


Lol. I didn't see it


You're lucky you got away with that one



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply
No . This would punish the family for not turning them in . This would mean no more safe haven if you can't keep your house in order . Why should we bring these people into our country , protect , educate and care for these people with our welfare state which cost us two generations on French fields if our return on the investment is 90 maimed or dead children?
Don't forget we fought for Muslims in kosovo , arguably in iraq and Afghanistan. In the UK we voted against war in Syria . The little prick who blew himself apart in Manchester was of Libyan descent, we protected them from gaddafi who he also boasted of fighting against . What reason has he to hate the UK ?
Deporting his extended family would be a kindness . Have you seen the videos of how Isis treats enemies of the state ? I am not suggesting we behead people with chainsaws or stoning or burning them to death . Perhaps they would be lauded as heroes if we sent them back .



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Semidemigod

The Manchester attacker's family did turn him. They told law enforcement they were concerned he was going to do something. Law enforcement did nothing.
edit on 5/26/2017 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Semidemigod

The Manchester attacker's family did turn him. They told law enforcement they were concerned he was going to do something. Law enforcement did nothing.
And they should have and had the law tools to do so! This is what is key to prevention. Being able to act against the potential attacker.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

You continue to miss the point I'm making. I'm trying to show you that extremism is deadly regardless of the descriptor attached to it. It doesn't matter if it's extremist Islam, extremist nationalism, extremist white supremacy, extremist whatever. The issue is the extremism. Not the word that it's followed by. So if you want to write a law (as draconian as I think your proposed law is) why not have it focus on extremism in general?

Let's be fair, with the way that things are going it's only a matter of time before a nationalist/neo-Nazi group or lone wolf launches an attack on a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. If you're worried about preventing innocent deaths why would you not want the perpetrator of such an attack also covered by your law? What if the British government is correct and the New IRA does prove to be a substantial threat to the UK. Why would you not want a terrorist organization like that covered by such a law?
Whatever the law coverage and its definition it is required as you rightly say in order to deal with potential extremist attackers, right now a good place to start would be with the Islamic ones. And I would think that any new law probably would cover all extremists regardless of religion, creed or background. But something is needed and if there had been one in place prior to Manchester then it probably would have prevented the attack and saved those lives.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

At what point do you stop sacrificing freedom for a sense of security?



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

What one law in a myriad of different cultures and laws and politics would work for everyone equally? There isnt one. Nor any one org to enforce it....

We would need a World Police...and the world as a whole wouldnt agree to that...and thats my point. Laws have no effect on crime really. Our prisons are OVERFLOWING worldwide with people who didnt give a crap about any "law" or "laws".

Thats the problem...look. We even have some terrorists or would-be terrorists in their early teens that have every intention of growing up and KILLING THEMSELVES just to hurt others.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I understand everyone's frustration and desire to pin terrorists before they actually hurt someone. The thing is until they actually do something what should be done? Normally, with non-Muslim or people who are not of Arabic descent a person is only arrested after they commit a crime. So the real question here is what kind of society do you want to live in. Do you want to live in a society where you can be declared to be "criminal" for crimes of consciousness, arrested, convicted, and then serve the sentence which may include capital punishment. I'm all for policing the ragheads before they strike. I'm just afraid we will lose all our liberties when crimes of consciousness are used to fight political foes.

I have no answers. I just know there are trade-offs in every decision about how the system is supposed to work.



Whenever there is an incident at an airport, "security is reviewed and tightened". So because someone decides to put volatiles in their shoes, everyone is now treated as a supect and has to be searched to avoid racially profiling anyone.

By that logic, anyone who goes near a concert should be asked to removed their tops and be patted down.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

are you willing to rewrite this and extend it to all?
Like, I don't know, anyone caught preaching or distributing extremist content, ect.
that way, we might be able to detect the next abortion clinic bomber before the hit also!!



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think once you intentionally blow yourself up along with scores of innocents humane treatment no longer applies. It would essentially be a deterrent. I'm sure you know what that means.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Very true . That could be a clause that excuses them from the harsh punishment of deportation. In regards to the Manchester bomber the newspapers have been reporting that he called his mother to ask forgiveness before he acted . This tells me deportation of the entire family would be a great deterrent.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I hadn't even considered that the north Koreans used similar methods . You must agree though that it works for Kim .



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Semidemigod

So does shooting his relatives with an AA gun. Should we implement that as a law as well?



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Not for me thanks . I've made my suggestion. If that's what floats your boat email your mp .



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The logic of the OP is sadly irrefutable.

Arguments about due process are legalistic in nature.

They are subject to precedent.

The question is simple...... Are we looking at War?

According to the perpetrators it is a War.

We have rules for that situation.

Potential enemies enjoy very restricted civil rights in that case.

Preventive detention is to be expected and has historic precedence.

The Government can protect the people or deal with the consequences of failing to.

How many more innocent children will it take before reprisal atrocities start to happen?

It will be a choice between legal War Powers or Civil War.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: draoicht
The logic of the OP is sadly irrefutable.

Arguments about due process are legalistic in nature.

They are subject to precedent.

The question is simple...... Are we looking at War?

According to the perpetrators it is a War.

We have rules for that situation.

Potential enemies enjoy very restricted civil rights in that case.

Preventive detention is to be expected and has historic precedence.

The Government can protect the people or deal with the consequences of failing to.

How many more innocent children will it take before reprisal atrocities start to happen?

It will be a choice between legal War Powers or Civil War.

I couldn't have put it better. Deal with the potential perpetrators more effectively in a way that guarantees they are prevented from killing our kids! I am sure that a law can be defined that can be applied to extremists (or potential ones) who are known to the security services without it impinging too much upon good ordinary and honest citizens who's children need to be properly protected!

It amazes me how many posters do see the need for preventive action of the only kind that can be effective! Me thinks if they were a parent victim they might think differently. I have many children and know what I want for their protection!



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

What one law in a myriad of different cultures and laws and politics would work for everyone equally? There isnt one. Nor any one org to enforce it....

We would need a World Police...and the world as a whole wouldnt agree to that...and thats my point. Laws have no effect on crime really. Our prisons are OVERFLOWING worldwide with people who didnt give a crap about any "law" or "laws".

Thats the problem...look. We even have some terrorists or would-be terrorists in their early teens that have every intention of growing up and KILLING THEMSELVES just to hurt others.
We need something to prevent such animals attacking our children or do we just accept what they do and allow them to do it when we know who they are and could therefore stop them?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Why do these people become extremists and perpetrate such evil acts is a complex question to answer I am sure but whatever the excuse/s, be they cultural, political or psychological there is no justification for murdering innocent children or adults.

We all know that humans have the capability for violence and particularly males and young people growing up are subject to all sorts of personal and cultural pressures, however, committing terrorist attacks is not the answer nor justifiable.

And the so called values of the Islamic faith is often portrayed in such a way to many young people that these acts are OK to commit and that the so called Jihad is glorious! Anyone who doesn't agree or adhere to the same values are the enemy to be destroyed. It's a case of you are either with them or against them. There is no tolerance or room for multiculturalism and integration in their teachings and beliefs! We are the infidels and considered a prime target!

So there are root problems arising from the beliefs and interpretation of the Islamic faith. Even amongst their own kind. take a good look at the middle east and the various combatants in play!

I therefore, reiterate what I have said previously that the only way to prevent those who wish to perpetrate such evil acts of terror against the innocent is to target those/them who think about, plan, organise, help, promote, orate about committing such acts and disable them in such a way that people are protected from them. Now what methods are used and how they are applied is for those who have the expertise and authority of the law to determine. One thing that would be useful is to give those who are potential threats and known to the security services the option to be electronically tagged or be either jailed or deported! I'm sure that there are many other methods that could be applied within the framework of a law!

If we want to stop them then my logic is the only way! Otherwise more and more acts from those known to us will occur! So now is the time to start to act to prevent another known extremist attack!




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join