Too late for that Barbel, its written all over the walls in the gents in SABS...... I had to look up the term " old souse"!!
It's in the second cubicle door just above that graffiti about me being nice
Sadly I have to return to the "politics". First I'd like to thank Vesper for her post - it was moving and interesting. I loved TP's idea about sex change for the violent extremist Muslims, it's a very good idea that can't be used.
I heard George Carlin's talk about political correctness. I enjoyed it and agree on pretty much everything he said. The culture of finding "prettier" names for things to make them sound unthreatening or nicer is a pest. I didn't find nicer words or euphemisms for unpleasant things. I used the words "kill" and "assassinate", not "never to be seen again", "disappearing at a healthy rate", "just seem to disappear", "swift justice" etc. If someone has used politically correct language it wasn't me. I wrote straight forwardly about the legal, ethical and practical consequences of what was suggested.
Chriscoop wrote that his suggestions would not weaken our civilization, but protect it. What we need to ask is: What is our civilization? What are the pillars of it? Is it trying at every cost to make sure a few hundred people don't get killed by terrorists? Or is it something deeper, more basic? I like to quote Sen. John McCain and what he said when others tried to justify torture because the prisoners were terrorists. He said: "It's not about who they are - it's about who WE are!"
The pillars of our civilisation are things like the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. We haven't safeguarded our way of life if we undermine those principles, even if we manage to stop some terrorist attacks because of it.
I hope no-one thought I suggested earlier to ban cars or tobacco. My point was that cars and tobacco cause far more deaths than terrorism, but we don't consider reactions nearly as extreme to stop those deaths. Barbel was right that banning those probably would be constitutional issues, but that wasn't really my point anyway.
I wrote about the legal and ethical problems with the ideas of TP and Chriscoop, but I also wrote about the practical consequences. When (not if) such a program gets exposed, the backlash would cause perhaps irreparable damage to the real war on terror.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
Sadly I have to return to the "politics". First I'd like to thank Vesper for her post - it was moving and interesting. I loved TP's idea about sex change for the violent extremist Muslims, it's a very good idea that can't be used.
I heard George Carlin's talk about political correctness. I enjoyed it and agree on pretty much everything he said. The culture of finding "prettier" names for things to make them sound unthreatening or nicer is a pest. I didn't find nicer words or euphemisms for unpleasant things. I used the words "kill" and "assassinate", not "never to be seen again", "disappearing at a healthy rate", "just seem to disappear", "swift justice" etc. If someone has used politically correct language it wasn't me. I wrote straight forwardly about the legal, ethical and practical consequences of what was suggested.
Chriscoop wrote that his suggestions would not weaken our civilization, but protect it. What we need to ask is: What is our civilization? What are the pillars of it? Is it trying at every cost to make sure a few hundred people don't get killed by terrorists? Or is it something deeper, more basic? I like to quote Sen. John McCain and what he said when others tried to justify torture because the prisoners were terrorists. He said: "It's not about who they are - it's about who WE are!"
The pillars of our civilisation are things like the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. We haven't safeguarded our way of life if we undermine those principles, even if we manage to stop some terrorist attacks because of it.
I hope no-one thought I suggested earlier to ban cars or tobacco. My point was that cars and tobacco cause far more deaths than terrorism, but we don't consider reactions nearly as extreme to stop those deaths. Barbel was right that banning those probably would be constitutional issues, but that wasn't really my point anyway.
I wrote about the legal and ethical problems with the ideas of TP and Chriscoop, but I also wrote about the practical consequences. When (not if) such a program gets exposed, the backlash would cause perhaps irreparable damage to the real war on terror.
" at every cost " well the cost to wider public and law abiding citizens would be nil. The terrorist's would pay the cost by being neutralised. The very pillars of our society here in the UK include tolerance, sociability, freedom of speech, freedom of liberty... All if which these terrorists want to destroy. These values have already been eroded and the rot has set in. A British born and raised Muslim who has enjoyed our western freedoms and way if like, to which he was welcome to do so and entitled to in my opinion and according to our laws and societal values decides to blow up INNOCENT CHILDREN because he prefers the way of radical extremism, why? Because the police persecuted him? Because white people racially abused him? No! 30 or 40 years ago maybe not these days and not in his lifetime in the UK. What is he killing for? Well his ideals would like women to live under sufferance, homosexuals to be put to death in fact his ideals contrast our own and undermine our CIVILIZATION. But hey ho let's allow him to kill a few innocent people, let's allow him to be part of a network who's intention it is to wipe out out western way of life and civility, let's let them continue to do that because if don't we are barbaric and uncivilised and not tolerant.
Driving cars and smoking are personal choices, these days we all know the risks, being ripped apart by metal shrapnel at a pop concert is not a personal choice, neither is being run down by a truck in a Christmas market. But maybe we should put health warning signs on pop concerts and Christmas fayres.
ATTENDING THIS LEISURE ACTIVITY MAY RESULT IN DEATH BY TERRORISM THAT WE TOLERATE BECAUSE YOUR LIVES ARENT THAT IMPORTANT
Maybe I'm not right in the head but I'd gladly swap the lives of 22 terrorists for the lives of the 22 killed in Manchester.
I'd also point out that if an invasion force of ISIS let's call them soldiers for now numbering 3000 landed on the shores of Norway and slaughtered all before them including children on their way to Oslo would you be offering tolerance or would you expect your national military to engage and repel them? Or maybe just attempt to arrest and deport them? I think most people would expect their own soldiers to engage them, shoot to kill and preserve the lives of the Norwegian people.
If the scenario you mentioned at the end of your post happened, of cource the Norwegian military would and should fight them. But I would not agree to a government program to kill citizens on our soil. Let's be clear that this is what we're talking about.
I support the deporting or jailing violent extremists. I support assassinating known terrorists where it's unrealistic to arrest them. I don't support undermining the pillars of our our society for something that might work, but in my opinion will likely just make things worse.
Of course our lives are valuable, especially the young. But we chose to have cars in spite of thousands that die in traffic, because the freedom is important to us. And we chose to live with the far smaller chance of getting killed by terrorists instead of total surveilance and assassination programs because freedom and law matters to us. Cars aren't evil like terrorists are, but the comparison works.
The idea that a assassination program against citizens on home soil won't have direct or inderect concequenses for ordinary lawabiding people or society is completely unrealistic. What you are suggesting sounds cool and works in some thriller novels or action movies, but this is the real world. We can't have assassination programs against citizens here at home.
Given the terrorist violence in N.Ireland , several special powers had to be introduced , temporarily to help in the
Fight against them. I was stopped and asked where I was going, where had I come from etc. As I fitted the
Demographic of the people they were looking for. I can understand that, but don't feel outraged at losing a
Few rights and privileges, if it helps stop someone else getting killed.
There could be a file on me, somewhere in an MI5 drawer detailing my boring life ( the only
Secret society I belonged to was The Ulster Society of Magicians ...... Which didn't get me as many girls as you'd
Think ) but if it meant, I could be ignored and resources moved to watch some terrorist.
So I have some experience of living through a violent time. ..
The point I'm trying to make ( badly I will admit ) is that in times like these, fighting ISIS some temporary changes
To the rights of certain citizens ( terrorist suspects .... Not the general public ) will have to happen, this is a war
and you must give the intelligence services the tools they need. If you don't but cling rigidly to the mantra of
"Human rights for all and can't be interfered with " then ISIS is guaranteed to win, as they can operate freely
Knowing, it will be so difficult for the po!ice to prosecute. Obviously if ISIS win, none of us will have any
Rights at all ! and trying to appeal for a higher court, ....... Well I doubt you'll have the opportunity.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
If the scenario you mentioned at the end of your post happened, of cource the Norwegian military would and should fight them. But I would not agree to a government program to kill citizens on our soil. Let's be clear that this is what we're talking about.
I support the deporting or jailing violent extremists. I support assassinating known terrorists where it's unrealistic to arrest them. I don't support undermining the pillars of our our society for something that might work, but in my opinion will likely just make things worse.
Of course our lives are valuable, especially the young. But we chose to have cars in spite of thousands that die in traffic, because the freedom is important to us. And we chose to live with the far smaller chance of getting killed by terrorists instead of total surveilance and assassination programs because freedom and law matters to us. Cars aren't evil like terrorists are, but the comparison works.
The idea that a assassination program against citizens on home soil won't have direct or inderect concequenses for ordinary lawabiding people or society is completely unrealistic. What you are suggesting sounds cool and works in some thriller novels or action movies, but this is the real world. We can't have assassination programs against citizens here at home.
Not citizens.... Terrorists!
Black operations and kill squads have and are used in the real world I've already quoted one example.
Surveillance is already becoming total in many towns and cities in spite of any terrorist threat and surveillance on would be terrorists is already a reality. Just because these men and women live amongst us already and don't openly attack us in an open traditional military sense makes little difference to the end result. I'd like to know at which point I said I wanted citizens assassinated?
With all due respect I find you belittling my thoughts as " cool" or like some teenage idea for an action movie, offensive, undermining and insulting.
With that I will agree to disagree with you and bow out of this discussion and take my juvenile thoughts with me before it denigrates further.
Overheard a couple of twenty something's talking today about, beheading videos !
How this one did this and this other one did this !
I was shocked ! How anyone can watch these as entertainment, has be worried about how
Many sociopaths are among us.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Overheard a couple of twenty something's talking today about, beheading videos !
How this one did this and this other one did this !
I was shocked ! How anyone can watch these as entertainment, has be worried about how
Many sociopaths are among us.
I think people are just very disconnected from the real horror of what they are seeing. A lot of young people these days seem oblivious to anything other than their hair or Facebook
I was quite amazed by the young man who was interviewed after he escaped from the arena in Manchester, he was asked about security entering the arena and could just say how pleased he was no one took his hairspray off him!!! HAIRSPRAY!!
When I was 20 hairspray was for women with perms or a blue rinse and set!
If the scenario you mentioned at the end of your post happened, of cource the Norwegian military would and should fight them. But I would not agree to a government program to kill citizens on our soil. Let's be clear that this is what we're talking about.
I support the deporting or jailing violent extremists. I support assassinating known terrorists where it's unrealistic to arrest them. I don't support undermining the pillars of our our society for something that might work, but in my opinion will likely just make things worse.
Of course our lives are valuable, especially the young. But we chose to have cars in spite of thousands that die in traffic, because the freedom is important to us. And we chose to live with the far smaller chance of getting killed by terrorists instead of total surveilance and assassination programs because freedom and law matters to us. Cars aren't evil like terrorists are, but the comparison works.
The idea that a assassination program against citizens on home soil won't have direct or inderect concequenses for ordinary lawabiding people or society is completely unrealistic. What you are suggesting sounds cool and works in some thriller novels or action movies, but this is the real world. We can't have assassination programs against citizens here at home.
Not citizens.... Terrorists!
Black operations and kill squads have and are used in the real world I've already quoted one example.
Surveillance is already becoming total in many towns and cities in spite of any terrorist threat and surveillance on would be terrorists is already a reality. Just because these men and women live amongst us already and don't openly attack us in an open traditional military sense makes little difference to the end result. I'd like to know at which point I said I wanted citizens assassinated?
With all due respect I find you belittling my thoughts as " cool" or like some teenage idea for an action movie, offensive, undermining and insulting.
With that I will agree to disagree with you and bow out of this discussion and take my juvenile thoughts with me before it denigrates further.
So only people in the UK who are not yet citizens should get assassinated? I don't think you mentioned that before. Wouldn't it be better and more legal to deport them?
Yes, assassinations happen. Sometimes it's a good thing. But I don't think any democracy has a program to assassinate people inside the country.
Yes, I wrote that your idea seemed more like an action movie idea than something that would work in reality. Earlier you called my opinions "political correctness", something that might be seen as belittling too. too. We should probably focus on the issues, both of us.
In my mind once someone decides to become a terrorist they are no longer a citizen, they may still be a national but have eschewed their citizenship in favour of their cause. Would the IRA members think themselves British citizens? Do the basque separatists consider themselves as Spanish citizens?
What's the difference between a terrorist being shot before he commits an atrocity, during or after? Other than victims or a nuance of the law? which is there for political correctness.
What's the difference between dropping a bomb on an ISIS camp in Iraq or shooting an ISIS member in Islington?
The US shot and killed bin laden, do you think they wouldn't have done that if he'd been a us citizen or was hiding on us soil? Operation Flavius was sanctioned by a democratic government and carried out on home soil. Operation nimrod was also.
Time to hold hands and have a quick chorus of this https://youtu.be/bYJMtn6IJeE
We might all come from different backgrounds, different parts of the world, with different cultures
and beliefs but we can all be united in one thing ........... To make a point of calling Higgins Higgy-babe
At least once a month !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Time to hold hands and have a quick chorus of this https://youtu.be/bYJMtn6IJeE
We might all come from different backgrounds, different parts of the world, with different cultures
and beliefs but we can all be united in one thing ........... To make a point of calling Higgins Higgy-babe
At least once a month !
Kumbaya mi Lord
And there was me hoping it would be the frog chorus by Paul McCartney
" and we all stand together da doo"
Considerably lighter I'd say teenage? It seems you, I and Sean connery share the same physical trait of looking older than we were, I've always looked 30- 40 even when I was 25 But the upside is I still do -{
Comments
It's in the second cubicle door just above that graffiti about me being nice
I can't repeat what it says on the gents walls about Sir M
I thought it just had his phone number and a time and date!
It should be - I wrote it
Strange, I thought it was written in German...
*Edited because I misspelled creative
I heard George Carlin's talk about political correctness. I enjoyed it and agree on pretty much everything he said. The culture of finding "prettier" names for things to make them sound unthreatening or nicer is a pest. I didn't find nicer words or euphemisms for unpleasant things. I used the words "kill" and "assassinate", not "never to be seen again", "disappearing at a healthy rate", "just seem to disappear", "swift justice" etc. If someone has used politically correct language it wasn't me. I wrote straight forwardly about the legal, ethical and practical consequences of what was suggested.
Chriscoop wrote that his suggestions would not weaken our civilization, but protect it. What we need to ask is: What is our civilization? What are the pillars of it? Is it trying at every cost to make sure a few hundred people don't get killed by terrorists? Or is it something deeper, more basic? I like to quote Sen. John McCain and what he said when others tried to justify torture because the prisoners were terrorists. He said: "It's not about who they are - it's about who WE are!"
The pillars of our civilisation are things like the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. We haven't safeguarded our way of life if we undermine those principles, even if we manage to stop some terrorist attacks because of it.
I hope no-one thought I suggested earlier to ban cars or tobacco. My point was that cars and tobacco cause far more deaths than terrorism, but we don't consider reactions nearly as extreme to stop those deaths. Barbel was right that banning those probably would be constitutional issues, but that wasn't really my point anyway.
I wrote about the legal and ethical problems with the ideas of TP and Chriscoop, but I also wrote about the practical consequences. When (not if) such a program gets exposed, the backlash would cause perhaps irreparable damage to the real war on terror.
Can't be...he's not allowed anything sharp
No, it wasn't as complimentary as that... and it was written in crayon, of course.
Driving cars and smoking are personal choices, these days we all know the risks, being ripped apart by metal shrapnel at a pop concert is not a personal choice, neither is being run down by a truck in a Christmas market. But maybe we should put health warning signs on pop concerts and Christmas fayres.
ATTENDING THIS LEISURE ACTIVITY MAY RESULT IN DEATH BY TERRORISM THAT WE TOLERATE BECAUSE YOUR LIVES ARENT THAT IMPORTANT
Maybe I'm not right in the head but I'd gladly swap the lives of 22 terrorists for the lives of the 22 killed in Manchester.
I'd also point out that if an invasion force of ISIS let's call them soldiers for now numbering 3000 landed on the shores of Norway and slaughtered all before them including children on their way to Oslo would you be offering tolerance or would you expect your national military to engage and repel them? Or maybe just attempt to arrest and deport them? I think most people would expect their own soldiers to engage them, shoot to kill and preserve the lives of the Norwegian people.
I support the deporting or jailing violent extremists. I support assassinating known terrorists where it's unrealistic to arrest them. I don't support undermining the pillars of our our society for something that might work, but in my opinion will likely just make things worse.
Of course our lives are valuable, especially the young. But we chose to have cars in spite of thousands that die in traffic, because the freedom is important to us. And we chose to live with the far smaller chance of getting killed by terrorists instead of total surveilance and assassination programs because freedom and law matters to us. Cars aren't evil like terrorists are, but the comparison works.
The idea that a assassination program against citizens on home soil won't have direct or inderect concequenses for ordinary lawabiding people or society is completely unrealistic. What you are suggesting sounds cool and works in some thriller novels or action movies, but this is the real world. We can't have assassination programs against citizens here at home.
Given the terrorist violence in N.Ireland , several special powers had to be introduced , temporarily to help in the
Fight against them. I was stopped and asked where I was going, where had I come from etc. As I fitted the
Demographic of the people they were looking for. I can understand that, but don't feel outraged at losing a
Few rights and privileges, if it helps stop someone else getting killed.
There could be a file on me, somewhere in an MI5 drawer detailing my boring life ( the only
Secret society I belonged to was The Ulster Society of Magicians ...... Which didn't get me as many girls as you'd
Think )
So I have some experience of living through a violent time. ..
The point I'm trying to make ( badly I will admit ) is that in times like these, fighting ISIS some temporary changes
To the rights of certain citizens ( terrorist suspects .... Not the general public ) will have to happen, this is a war
and you must give the intelligence services the tools they need. If you don't but cling rigidly to the mantra of
"Human rights for all and can't be interfered with " then ISIS is guaranteed to win, as they can operate freely
Knowing, it will be so difficult for the po!ice to prosecute. Obviously if ISIS win, none of us will have any
Rights at all ! and trying to appeal for a higher court, ....... Well I doubt you'll have the opportunity.
Black operations and kill squads have and are used in the real world I've already quoted one example.
Surveillance is already becoming total in many towns and cities in spite of any terrorist threat and surveillance on would be terrorists is already a reality. Just because these men and women live amongst us already and don't openly attack us in an open traditional military sense makes little difference to the end result. I'd like to know at which point I said I wanted citizens assassinated?
With all due respect I find you belittling my thoughts as " cool" or like some teenage idea for an action movie, offensive, undermining and insulting.
With that I will agree to disagree with you and bow out of this discussion and take my juvenile thoughts with me before it denigrates further.
Overheard a couple of twenty something's talking today about, beheading videos !
How this one did this and this other one did this !
I was shocked ! How anyone can watch these as entertainment, has be worried about how
Many sociopaths are among us.
I was quite amazed by the young man who was interviewed after he escaped from the arena in Manchester, he was asked about security entering the arena and could just say how pleased he was no one took his hairspray off him!!! HAIRSPRAY!!
When I was 20 hairspray was for women with perms or a blue rinse and set!
So only people in the UK who are not yet citizens should get assassinated? I don't think you mentioned that before. Wouldn't it be better and more legal to deport them?
Yes, assassinations happen. Sometimes it's a good thing. But I don't think any democracy has a program to assassinate people inside the country.
Yes, I wrote that your idea seemed more like an action movie idea than something that would work in reality. Earlier you called my opinions "political correctness", something that might be seen as belittling too. too. We should probably focus on the issues, both of us.
What's the difference between a terrorist being shot before he commits an atrocity, during or after? Other than victims or a nuance of the law? which is there for political correctness.
What's the difference between dropping a bomb on an ISIS camp in Iraq or shooting an ISIS member in Islington?
The US shot and killed bin laden, do you think they wouldn't have done that if he'd been a us citizen or was hiding on us soil? Operation Flavius was sanctioned by a democratic government and carried out on home soil. Operation nimrod was also.
Oh, look: happy bunnies. Happy peaceful bunnies.
https://youtu.be/bYJMtn6IJeE
We might all come from different backgrounds, different parts of the world, with different cultures
and beliefs but we can all be united in one thing ........... To make a point of calling Higgins Higgy-babe
At least once a month !
X-( X-( X-(
And there was me hoping it would be the frog chorus by Paul McCartney
" and we all stand together da doo"
Teenage me!