The General Political Thread

[Karth]

Or ship them to Guantanamo bay 

[Prince_Eugen]

I personally believe that the only way to fight jihadits - is to send them directly to 72 virgins.

[Toffee]

Even I hate the thought of letting known terrorists into the country. Isn’t that the entire point of what we’re trying to stop. How many attackers have been known to intelligence services but haven’t been able to be stopped. You’re playing a dangerous game by using people’s lives as bait just so you can catch the criminal in the act. Terrorists don’t deserve to be rehabilitated. It’s not pragmatic at all, it’s lunacy.

[Riddlez]

known terrorists

Suspected terrorists. If they were known terrorists, they'd be in prison

[Phoen!x]

known terrorists

Suspected terrorists. If they were known terrorists, they'd be in prison

Well thats pretty much the problem we'd have with the entirety of your proposal above. It's legally kind of impossible to really do something before something has happened.

[Edwin]

OKay, so as a government, you have a returned jihadi. You kind of want to know what he or she is up to when theyre back in your country and youre kind of that they want to kill more people.

What better way to keep an eye on them is to put them in a location of your choosing (in other words, social housing in te middle of Dundee, Scotland, so no chance of there being fellow radicals). You can bug the shit out the house and basically keep an eye on the jihadi almost all the time. That also increases the chance of getting to know his or her network.

If this isnt entirely the case and the jihadi has returned slightly cured of his ISIS zealotry, it may be a decent shot at reintregration thereby making sure attacks dont happen too.


I get that it goes against a more conservative approach of people having to be punished for what theyve done, but youre not going to stop radicalisation if you just put them in a cell. This is controversial, but pragmatic.
Dont forget these kinds of decisions arent usually made by politicians, but by the intelligence services. They kind of know what theyre doing.

I sincerely hope you're playing devil's advocate.

[William]

Burn them, burn them all

[Toffee]

known terrorists

Suspected terrorists. If they were known terrorists, they'd be in prison

And these suspected terrorists often get away with what they were planning because they haven’t been watched close enough. The bloke who carried out the London attack was known to MI5 and that didn’t help much.

[Prince_Eugen]

This may hurt someone, but i'm personally extremly against muslims polluting lands of Europe.

[StevenChilton]

OKay, so as a government, you have a returned jihadi. You kind of want to know what he or she is up to when theyre back in your country and youre kind of that they want to kill more people.

What better way to keep an eye on them is to put them in a location of your choosing (in other words, social housing in te middle of Dundee, Scotland, so no chance of there being fellow radicals). You can bug the shit out the house and basically keep an eye on the jihadi almost all the time. That also increases the chance of getting to know his or her network.

If this isnt entirely the case and the jihadi has returned slightly cured of his ISIS zealotry, it may be a decent shot at reintregration thereby making sure attacks dont happen too.


I get that it goes against a more conservative approach of people having to be punished for what theyve done, but youre not going to stop radicalisation if you just put them in a cell. This is controversial, but pragmatic.
Dont forget these kinds of decisions arent usually made by politicians, but by the intelligence services. They kind of know what theyre doing.

I sincerely hope you're playing devil's advocate.

Anyone who joined ISIS was *at the very least* accessory to genocide and ethnic cleansing, probably the worst crimes against humanity it's possible to commit. Do you seriously think it's morally defensible to let them go free, let alone pay them off? Personally I think they should be put in front of a firing squad and they should be charged for the bullets.

The idea is ludicrous anyway-security services are already stretched thin keeping an eye on suspects and this will make the situation even worse. And think how embarrassing it will be when, after all this is over and the truth/reconciliation process begins, it emerges that that the British Government has been dishing out benefits to people who are now being sought after by the international courts in connection to genocide. 

[Riddlez]

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.

And these suspected terrorists often get away with what they were planning because they haven’t been watched close enough. The bloke who carried out the London attack was known to MI5 and that didn’t help much.

Different point. The dude from the London attack wasn't a returnee from Syria/Iraq. They had, in their eyes, little to go on and put him under strict surveillance. A returned fighter and suspected terrorist is per definition a national security threat, warranting further surveillance. I wouldn't be suprised if the laws already exist that they can just put them under surveillance.

This may hurt someone, but i'm personally extremly against muslims polluting lands of Europe.

If you can't contribute anything but trash talk and generalise, you should probably just fuck off.

[Prince_Eugen]

This may hurt someone, but i'm personally extremly against muslims polluting lands of Europe.

If you can't contribute anything but trash talk and generalise, you should probably just fuck off.

I do contribute some, actually.

[StevenChilton]

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.

Do you have any evidence to prove it's effective? Considering the intelligence services are stretched thin enough as it is and they do in fact care about giving public money to genocide enablers (at least in the UK) that can't possibly be true. Given most terrorist attacks are carried out by people already known to police/intelligence services it makes no sense to do what you're proposing. There simply aren't the resources to fully check what these people are up to.

[Duuring]

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?

 That being said, we don't know how many terrorist attacks have been avoided by the security forces. Quite a lot, apparantly. And in the Netherlands, someone just got convicted for plotting a terrorist attack. So when the case is there, they do go to jail.

[Toffee]

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.

Do you have any evidence to prove it's effective? Considering the intelligence services are stretched thin enough as it is and they do in fact care about giving public money to genocide enablers (at least in the UK) that can't possibly be true. Given most terrorist attacks are carried out by people already known to police/intelligence services it makes no sense to do what you're proposing. There simply aren't the resources to fully check what these people are up to.

Exactly this. The benefits systems are stretched thin as it is. Are we gonna give money to terrorists over innocent people. If we let terrorists back into the UK you're asking for something to happen. It's like playing bait with the public. The United Kingdom's policy is no negotiation with terrorists. There can't be any leeway.