Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is It Time To Accept The War (Jihad) Declared On Us?
77 Answers
Seems to me we(the West) need to accept we are at war. So we should formally accept this and start interning those that wish us(or potentially wish us) ill.
Enough of talk let ys start to walk the walk. We all know the religion behind this let us get that reliogion to flush out those that sympathise and support the jihad and intern them.
Enough of talk let ys start to walk the walk. We all know the religion behind this let us get that reliogion to flush out those that sympathise and support the jihad and intern them.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"My first action would be to suggest we incarcerate anyone suspected of terrorist activity and every known terrorist sympathiser."
I'd be worried that "sympathiser" is rather too vague really. Would people who condemn the actions, but empathise with the motivations or some of them, be considered "sympathisers"? Would it rely on maybe one idle post, or would you not need a long-term pattern of "sympathising behaviour"? How long-term or not could that be? Also, wouldn't this amount to punishing people for thought crime? Aside from the moral implications of that, I'd have thought that you would just drive the sympathy levels up rather rapidly, only making the problem harder to deal with.
For the first part, I think there's a case for trying to move faster in arresting people suspected of terrorism, no doubt. The problem is that you'd still have to secure convictions, no? This has proven apparently difficult in the past, despite the best efforts of our security services (and for every failure there are hopefully plenty of unsung successes).
At any rate, incarceration without trial can't continue indefinitely, so there would need to be far more to the solution than that.
I'd be worried that "sympathiser" is rather too vague really. Would people who condemn the actions, but empathise with the motivations or some of them, be considered "sympathisers"? Would it rely on maybe one idle post, or would you not need a long-term pattern of "sympathising behaviour"? How long-term or not could that be? Also, wouldn't this amount to punishing people for thought crime? Aside from the moral implications of that, I'd have thought that you would just drive the sympathy levels up rather rapidly, only making the problem harder to deal with.
For the first part, I think there's a case for trying to move faster in arresting people suspected of terrorism, no doubt. The problem is that you'd still have to secure convictions, no? This has proven apparently difficult in the past, despite the best efforts of our security services (and for every failure there are hopefully plenty of unsung successes).
At any rate, incarceration without trial can't continue indefinitely, so there would need to be far more to the solution than that.
Zacs-Master, I don’t know what you think I won’t admit.
Jim, whatever we do, Islamic terrorists and their sympathisers are never going to like us. We need to get used to that. Complacency and tolerance isn’t working and it will never work. Poppy burners, those who walk the streets of this country with banners calling for the beheading of the infidel or for death to British soldiers, or for the flag of Islam to fly over Downing Street, etc., etc., I would either deport, or if that wasn’t an option, imprison for life. These people are our enemies.
Jim, whatever we do, Islamic terrorists and their sympathisers are never going to like us. We need to get used to that. Complacency and tolerance isn’t working and it will never work. Poppy burners, those who walk the streets of this country with banners calling for the beheading of the infidel or for death to British soldiers, or for the flag of Islam to fly over Downing Street, etc., etc., I would either deport, or if that wasn’t an option, imprison for life. These people are our enemies.
I'm not sure that any particular approach will work in its entirety -- being overtly aggressive in persecuting people risks backfiring spectacularly, as t has done several times when tried in the past -- but, that said, it seems like your definition of "sympathiser" is not all that loose, so that's something.
Not sure about imprisoning people for life for burning poppies, and I also think there's a case for preserving the right to legitimate protest, and that can include provocative demonstrations. Calling for beheading should never be acceptable, but there is already a law against that, no?
Not sure about imprisoning people for life for burning poppies, and I also think there's a case for preserving the right to legitimate protest, and that can include provocative demonstrations. Calling for beheading should never be acceptable, but there is already a law against that, no?
//Calling for beheading should never be acceptable, but there is already a law against that, no? //
Yes there is and a load of other British laws that our muslims transgress but up until now a blind eye was applied. May be no longer if our new PM is strong enough but she didn't achieve much as Home Secretary!
Yes there is and a load of other British laws that our muslims transgress but up until now a blind eye was applied. May be no longer if our new PM is strong enough but she didn't achieve much as Home Secretary!
We could wring our hands and sit on them. We could mutter about the injustice of it all. We could apologise for being such a nuisance. Or we could face the inevitable, and deal with it. Decisively, strongly, take responsibility, and show we will not go gently into the past. We should make and take our future.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.