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

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first four and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2. If anyone is caught accessing and downloading Islamic extremist materials from Jihadi or ISIS sympathizer sites then they should be sent to Jail for 10 years.
3. If anyone is caught preaching extreme Islamic views (like Mr Hook in Brixton before and many others at mosques, including saudis) then they should be deported or jailed for 10 years (there choice)
4. If anyone is caught handing out extremist leaflets then they should be deported or jailed for 10 years (their choice)
5. ?
6 ?

Anyone care to add to my list? Come on don't be shy, say what you are really thinking.

Try not to give your freedom to someone who dont want it.

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.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Years ago.. The man putting poison in Tylenol bottles was a terrorist. The teen schoolgirl calling in a bomb threat to her high school is a terrorist. Ted Kazinski.... who took years to to find... was a terrorist who kept bombing...

The problem is greater than you can say here. Even sleeper cells... or the military soldier who goes off. Your thread proposition here is flawed in the respect we can't monitor the world.

Your perfectly normal neighbor could one day go off... So it's not to go after those we know about by vetting etc... But nothing can be done about those not yet even known of... Or who will become one.......

I am getting real. In my view action needs to be taken once a person of interest comes to light because of their own actions and interactions and the triggers can be define in a law.

I don't believe that any Islamic person who is conducting themselves in ways which we should be concerned or alarmed should have the same rights as a ordinary citizen! Thus, there should be a law to help prevent them from any negative and threatening acts!

If I get a list of 10 I will send it to TM as a follow to an email already sent!

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Years ago.. The man putting poison in Tylenol bottles was a terrorist. The teen schoolgirl calling in a bomb threat to her high school is a terrorist. Ted Kazinski.... who took years to to find... was a terrorist who kept bombing...

The problem is greater than you can say here. Even sleeper cells... or the military soldier who goes off. Your thread proposition here is flawed in the respect we can't monitor the world.

Your perfectly normal neighbor could one day go off... So it's not to go after those we know about by vetting etc... But nothing can be done about those not yet even known of... Or who will become one.......

I understand this but if you first have a law to deal with people known to the security services that's already some prevention and if such a law had been available previously we would have stopped Manchester and previous attacks. And those people would be alive now!! Of course there will be circumstances whereby people are unknown but lets first be able to deal with the known!

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

By our government standards and the social Dyslexia we live today, along with all the suspect groups trying to make everybody else evil but terrorist groups of certain religion, that is call profiling, racist and promoting bigotry.

But hell we get our children killed because you known, we kill them too.

I agree with your point but I believe the 1984 notion of Thought Crimes already exists in the Western World if you do not agree with the liberal discourse.

Whilist it's a slippery slope to arrest people on charges of 'intent' to carry out an act of terror, I believe the only answer to combat radicalisation is to stop the multicult focus on everyone's separate cultures and races and cohese everyone under their shared (adoptive) nationality.

Islam needs to reform and stop being a dinosaur in the age of mammals

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.

The problem we have comes predominantly from Islamist so why cant we have a law that is defined to deal with Islamic extremists who are a potential threat. I don't see how that would affect an ordinary citizen who has no Islamic issues or connections thus nothing to fear from such a law. This is about preventing Islamic terrorist attacker and suicide bombers conducting such attacks on UK territory! Its all about the law definition and what it applies to!

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

With very few exceptions, most everyone is capable of committing an act of terror under the right circumstances. It's part of being human and we can't lock everybody up based on potential.

Knowing that little piece of truth, it might be wise to NOT limit our focus just to "potential perpetrators."

It might be worth the time and effort to do more about discussing and preventing the "potential causes."

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

With very few exceptions, most everyone is capable of committing an act of terror under the right circumstances. It's part of being human and we can't lock everybody up based on potential.

Knowing that little piece of truth, it might be wise to NOT limit our focus just to "potential perpetrators."

It might be worth the time and effort to do more about discussing and preventing the "potential causes."

Waste of time! We have been saying this for 30 years and nothing as worked.

We still have many radical Islamist visitors to mosques making their speeches which are often extreme. We have people handing out leaflets at mosques which are the same.

Until each potential person is a threat is dealt with in some appropriate way as per their actions then the Abedi's will keep coming and we will be saying the next time it happens (and it will) that he or she was known to the security services but we failed to act in someway that would have prevented the attack! Then the same old war of words begins all again but never gets anywhere or the the heart of the prevention mechanism that is required!

What we say or think in private has for too long remained there and its time we acted on it! And screw the political correctness and the BS worry about racialism!

Remember what I write because we will be talking about the next attack soon enough and the MO won't be that different, nor will the facts about the perpetrator being known beforehand!

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first one and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2.?
3.?

Whites live in a different world of thought.
Get real here.
The whites have lost all direction of "common sense" due to that #te they put in tooth paste called floride.

Only white people use toothpaste?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first one and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2.?
3.?

Whites live in a different world of thought.
Get real here.
The whites have lost all direction of "common sense" due to that #te they put in tooth paste called floride.

Only white people use toothpaste?

What do Islamist's use?.........plastic explosive

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first one and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2.?
3.?

Whites live in a different world of thought.
Get real here.
The whites have lost all direction of "common sense" due to that #te they put in tooth paste called floride.

Only white people use toothpaste?

What do Islamist's use?.........plastic explosive

The only way to stop modern terrorists is to stop bombing their countries.

For every innocent you bomb and we bomb a lot of innocents you create multiple terrorists. Or rather a lot of people who want revenge.

If someone bombed my family you could be sure I would be seeking revenge.

This does not mean I agree with any terrorist actions but I sure as hell understand how they get to the point where they choose to do what they do.

I wonder which friends or relatives of the Manchester attacker we killed or were killed due to our removal of the Libyan government and the entrance of the saudi backed jihadists.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
The only way to stop modern terrorists is to stop bombing their countries.

For every innocent you bomb and we bomb a lot of innocents you create multiple terrorists. Or rather a lot of people who want revenge.

If someone bombed my family you could be sure I would be seeking revenge.

This does not mean I agree with any terrorist actions but I sure as hell understand how they get to the point where they choose to do what they do.

I wonder which friends or relatives of the Manchester attacker we killed or were killed due to our removal of the Libyan government and the entrance of the saudi backed jihadists.

The Manchester bomber was a UK citizen who's Libyan father fought against Gadaffi! As we did! So why should he have a problem with the UK. Corbyn BS taking advantage of a tragedy is not the root problem. The root problem is with Islamist beliefs!

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I watched BBC's Question Time last night and it was clear to me that there was some reluctance to take any firm action against those who are on watch lists or known to the authorities regardless of the fact that they could be potential terrorists who may perpetrate deadly attacks.

And if there was a previous willingness and appropriate laws that could have been applied to such people then the Manchester attack would never have happened and those kids would still be with us!

It seems to me that whilst we convey rights to these people who are almost always known to the security services we wont be able to PREVENT them from conducting such attacks, but if we defined and applied new laws then we might be able to do so and better protect our children and the public in general.

Maybe we need a new law - a name? Ariana Law, Manchester's Law, Act of Evil, others??

What should that law cover in order to be able to prevent potential perpetrators carrying out their acts of evil?

What should be in the list of 10 aspects of such a law?

I will start with the first one and can think of many more.

1. Anyone who went or goes off to fight for the access of evil etc ISIS should automatically be stripped of their UK citizenship and deported if they have returned following a sentence of 10 years! This would remove the threat from them!
2.?
3.?

Whites live in a different world of thought.
Get real here.
The whites have lost all direction of "common sense" due to that #te they put in tooth paste called floride.

Only white people use toothpaste?

What do Islamist's use?.........plastic explosive

Wasn't that funny! Maybe we should find out what toothpaste Islamist's use and poison it so that it makes them nice people!

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a 'prophetic' warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal. Gaddafi's dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 - as civil war was engulfing Libya. In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: "They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe."

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a 'prophetic' warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal. Gaddafi's dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 - as civil war was engulfing Libya. In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: "They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe."

Yes I'm aware of that and it is very important to the whole issue so thanks for posting that.

It's interesting that it was spun so that we were to believe gaddafi was slaughtering innocent Libyan when in fact he was fighting jihadists the whole time.

He was right and look at what is happening now.