The General Political Thread

[Duuring]

But they're not terrorists. They are suspected terrorists, which gives security services justifications for certain actions. If there is enough proof to convict them, they will. But no judge will convict someone of terrorism just because the prosecution can prove he or she visited IS-controlled area. This isn't a political issue.

[Edwin]

Whoa, this is just getting more and more ridiculous and far-fetched.

I can actually sympathise with the rational side of giving them housing. It's effective.
You have to take into account that the intelligence community thinks about this completely rationally and really doesn't give a shit what the public thinks about their plans.
So long as they catch terrorists (which they do, more than you'd like to know) they don't give a shit about what people think.
And it does work, you can't really deny that. You just think it's morally deplorable. You're not wrong, but as I said, the Intel community doesn't really take that into account.

Could it be, in all your omniscient pro-(regressive) cuckoldry, you haven't considered that our intelligence agencies are completely overwhelmed with the sheer amount of terrorists polluting this country? Steven's cited the numbers already I believe; it's not numerically possible to monitor the amount of radicals in this country when considering the ratio of trained agents vs potential radicals (more accurately described as ticking time bombs at this stage).

Terror in the UK is hardly concentrated and easy to keep an eye on, just look at the distance between the origins of the Parsons Green attackers:

Spoiler

[close]

Definitely rational to increase the number of and broaden the distance between terrorists.

I'm not even going to entertain the idea you put forward of paying to import trained mass murderers from Syria, housing them, and then bugging their housing and communications to expose said terrorist network that you just imported. It's objectively irrational (conservatives arguing on a moral basis lol, that gave me some much needed comic relief).

I can actually sympathise with the rational side of giving them housing. It's effective.

Is that why the refugees who were paid off and taken into care by a well-off family honored by the Queen went on to contribute to the Parsons Green bombing? You have a strange definition of "effective".

But they're not terrorists. They are suspected terrorists, which gives security services justifications for certain actions. If there is enough proof to convict them, they will. But no judge will convict someone of terrorism just because the prosecution can prove he or she visited IS-controlled area. This isn't a political issue.

When somebody asks me why Northwestern Europe is riddled with terrorism and the go-to for defeated Jihadis, mind if I cite this post? Thanks.

[Duuring]

So you oppose the rule of law?

[StevenChilton]

Point is that it's very hard to prove membership of a terrorist organisations (because they don't exacttly keep archives) or that they commited warcrimes. Pretty much all returnee's claim to have been a humitarian aid worker or a nurse and you can't imprison someone based on a likelihood. I mean, stupid rule of law, amirite?

Rubbish. In the UK at least we know who the vast majority of them are and what they did/are doing, see here for instance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32026985

That's just what's been made public, the security agencies will obviously have much more extensive private files. Most of them are actually quite thick and it's easy to prove. Flying to Turkey? You'll come up on a list somewhere, MI5 will at the very least go through your internet history, listen in to your phone calls or whatever and the case will be built up from there. Not hard for governments to find out what you've been up to these days unless you only communicate via carrier pigeon. And I think you'll find ISIS do in fact keep archives because we've been recovering tens of thousands of documents from Mosul/Manbij/etc. Running a Caliphate tends to involve a lot of paperwork 'ya know.

[Riddlez]

I get what you are all saying, but it's not based on how things work. It's hard to explain because I can't just spew everything I know and the rest of it would take a shitload of time.

we don't know how many terrorist attacks have been avoided by the security forces. Quite a lot, apparantly.

Well not publicly, no. But even for countries such as the netherlands, it's more than we'd like.

our intelligence agencies are completely overwhelmed with the sheer amount of terrorists polluting this country?

Not exactly. The terrosist threat hasn't been higher than it is now and perviously we wouldn't have called them overwhelmed either. The people who commit attacks are slipping through the net because they simply do not do stuff we find suspicious enough to warrant intensive surveillance. Not because the agencies can't, but because they think it's a waste of time for such people.

Point is that it's very hard to prove membership of a terrorist organisations (because they don't exacttly keep archives) or that they commited warcrimes. Pretty much all returnee's claim to have been a humitarian aid worker or a nurse and you can't imprison someone based on a likelihood. I mean, stupid rule of law, amirite?

Rubbish. In the UK at least we know who the vast majority of them are and what they did/are doing, see here for instance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32026985

That's just what's been made public, the security agencies will obviously have much more extensive private files. Most of them are actually quite thick and it's easy to prove.

Quite easy to prove with what the intel services have yeah. But not enough legal evidence. Eitehr that or not enough to make it extremely sure to get a conviction. It's not about what they know... it's about what they can prove. Remember if there is any measure of reasonable doubt they won't convict? and you'll be in much more vtrouble with a failed conviction

[Edwin]

Anyone catch Trump's arrival in China? Looks like all that tough talk actually paid off, lol.

[Furrnox]

Anyone catch Trump's arrival in China? Looks like all that tough talk actually paid off, lol.

What do you mean?  Him getting a nice welcome doesn't mean anything when they come to negotiations.

[Edwin]

It shows us at the very least that the Chinese government appear to have regained their respect for the US President. I needn't remind anyone that Obama's last arrival was embarrassing, almost cringe worthy in fact.

[Karth]

Yea compared to when obama went seems China went all out to greet Trump

[Toffee]

Despite what many people say, Chinese US relations do seem to be improving. Donald Trump runs his mouth a bit but the combined opposition against North Korea does seem to have worked in his favour in regards to international cooperation.

[Edwin]

1776 will commence again

[close]

[StevenChilton]

The Chinese know Trump is a fantastic US President...for Chinese interests. Beijing has spent years trying to undermine TPP and Trump blew it up in his first week. His dumb comments about US troops stationed in Asia has also undermined America's position in the region. US allies are prepared to put up with it as a kind of 'one off' for four years but if he get's a second term countries will start to peel off and look to Beijing instead.

Essentially the Chinese want the US out of the Asia-Pacific as much as possible and Trump is a dream come true. He might talk tough on trade and NK but that's a minor compromise for them to accept. End result=Trump's sped up US decline by about 10 years.

[William]

Spoiler

[close]

[Furrnox]

Seems like I'm a cuck.

Spoiler

[close]

[Toffee]

I can't figure out how to post it like you all did so fuck you lot I'll link it instead.

http://politiscales.la-commune.net/results.html?c0=43&c1=24&b0=67&b1=5&t1=55&t0=14&s0=64&s1=10&m1=5&m0=57&p1=29&p0=45&femi=33&e0=36&e1=14&j1=24&j0=40&comp=67