EMR

The government's first responsibility is to maintain the freedoms and liberties of its population and not be driven to extremes by a tiny ,tiny minority.
Discussing the US A country were avowed racists, anti black, anti Semite can parade their views carrying guns in public.
More US citizens have been the victims of internal terrorism than external attacks such as the twin towers.
Oklahoma city being just one example. Following that were white extremists stopped from travelling within the US.

morpeth

-The point in the example given was that the US government when it made a concerted effort to go after whether it was the mafia, or those right-wing groups which were violent in the late 80's and 90's, was successful. And that dealing with the Islamic terrorists requires more firm and broad actions to reduce the threat, which can only grown the more radicals appear in the West whether home-grown or imported.

lurchio

And a quote from the Isis video released after the Barcelona atrocities:


The second jihadi in the video is believed to be Abu Salman Al Andalus (Abu Salman ‘of Andalusia).
He says in the clip: “We hope that Allah accepts the sacrifice of our brothers in Barcelona. Our war with you will continue until the world ends.”

Totally sick, but answers on a postcard please... 'HOW do you stop that level of hatred and fanaticism?'

EMR

By having border checks and asking " are you a terrorist ".
Or closing our borders to anyone We do not like.
It's very simple really, I cannot think why No one has thought of it before 🤔

lurchio

Yes, that works so well when you live on an island eh?, snug as a bug in a rug. Only problem, islands come with Coastlines. What you propose is flawed I'm afraid. Where theres an evil will, there's a way. Ask the IRA how they landed Libyan gunrunners,Drug gangs who landed hundreds of tonnes of cocaine on the Welsh coast, People smugglers etc.etc. Bad people do NOT generally use borders I'm afraid.

EMR

Being an Island has not prevented attacks in the UK.
Believe it not there actually some who do believe that border controls would prevent attacks.
As you rightly say they made little difference in Ireland and would not when it comes to fighting Isis.

lurchio

'Hard' borders are simply unrealistic. Not even the Berlin wall had a 100% success rate. On a smaller scale, during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland the North / South border had elevated OP (Obs Points), Patrols, Road checks, Surveillance both covert and overt, intelligence and informers, Police stations, Army Barracks etc. etc. but history tells us that the IRA could move across the border with consummate ease, even doing 'hit and run' operations as they pleased.


Unfortunately, as I said, where theres an evil will, theres always an evil way. I understand the distaste as regards what would effectively become a 'Police state', but if that's what it takes. As the GC say in Spain, 'Nothing to hide? Nothing to fear'


Again unfortunately, you will have the 'Freedom' movement up in arms and some Politicians. Don't forget that when the Shadow Home Sec and the Shadow PM (Abbott and Costello, sorry, Corbyn) were given the list of the Govt's proposed new 'Proscribed Organisations' following the rise of Isis and associated terror groups (They are added to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and its an offence to simply BELONG to them once they are 'Proscribed' and it goes up in severity from there), the dynamic duo objected to some on there as there was no direct evidence (Intelligence, but they said no direct evidence) and kicked off grand style.


Hard times need hard measures. Some consider stooping to their level makes us as bad as them, does it? We can start by routinely arming the Police, I served 30 years and would never have liked to carry a gun every day, but times have changed. My daughter is a Police Officer and carries a canister of CS gas and a baton, the game is raised above those levels now, well above. I for one would be pleased to see her carrying a Glock 9mm everyday. I bet the family of the poor Police officer stabbed to death in Westminster wished he would have been armed.


Call me old fashioned, fire with fire, take it to them.

EMR

One of closest friends was until two years ago part of an elite armed police unit.
Provided close protection to members off the royal family,heads of state Tec.
Had to use their weapon once in 20 years.
Another is a senior officer in military intelligence.
They would disagree with you 100%.
Armed police a we have seen can take out the terrorist after the event, a terrorist who knows that they are going to die.
Who has accepted that they have nothing to lose.
It's not about dealing with them after the event but preventing the act in advance and only intelligence and security can do that.

lurchio

They are 'hard targets' and difficult to get close to, terror will concentrate on softer targets to gain the most effect ( have a think about recent events). Bet he was glad the one time he needed it, he had a firearm though. 20 years has passed, times have changed, what was the rank of the Intelligence Officer, was he 'on the ground'?


The Nice attack lorry caused carnage and Death, but far more would have died had the 'Ordinary' Police ON THE STREETS on routine patrol, not shot the driver dead. The Barcelona driver came under fire, do you think that had an effect on him de - camping? Again, 'Ordinary' Police Officers on Patrol, not Armed Response, not Tactical Firearms Units, ordinary Police Officers. Cambrils? Do you think that was a tactical unit? Nope, Local Officers.


I would much rather a terrorist only got as far as the 'Allah' bit of the 'Allah Akbar' war cry before falling down , should he be rushing at my daughter with an explosive vest on, or an AK47, or a machete.


That's the way it is out there...................... now.

morpeth

Believe it or not some of the terrorist attacks have been conducted by people let into the country, who if not let in obviously would not have conducted the attacks.

No one is saying stricter border control will eliminate terrorism, but as part of an overall tougher approach has the potential to stop some terrorist attacks.

morpeth

"
Following that were white extremists stopped from travelling within the US."

The government very much increased its resources devoted to fighting domestic terrorism, which included for example infiltrating such extreme groups- some of these groups could end up having 25% of members being informants. The point, again, is by concerted effort and decision to take additional steps, government achieved some success. And the issue isn't whether some group in past was stopped from travelling, the issue is what measures can be taken now to reduce future terrorist attack : just because they may not have been taken before, why would that mean they shouldn't be now ?

EMR

Armed police in the UK would not have stopped one attack.
Armed police in France ,Germany and Spain did not stop any of the attacks you refer to.
Armed police may reduce the number of victims but surely the aim must be to prevent attacks not to reduce the number of victims.

lurchio

Never heard of a deterrent? As I said, the Bobby on the gate in Westminsters family may not agree. I have lived in the real,dirty and shocking world.

EMR

There is no deterrent against those prepared to die for their distorted view of their faith.They wear phoney explosive belts because they know that the police will shoot first ,question later.
There is no deterrent against those who blow themselves up.
Isis are not the IRA.

bobd22

Surely that should be prevent attacks and if that fails reduce number of victims? Armed police for me are not the be all and end all of the solution and I am not a believer that all police in UK need to be armed. I do believe though that if police want to be armed voluntarily to protect themselves and the public then that should be an option open to them. Having better border controls at entry points will not in itself stop terror attacks as impossible to secure every part of any border or coastline. Non of these things will stop terrorists but of course they will make it more difficult to carry out their attacks and if they do carry them out hopefully reduce numbers killed or injured. Reality all of what has been mentioned is required without doubt. I also think that we need to be more proactive in approach, the failing from what I have read is generally intelligence is there most of these people have been known to some extent but have been left to their own devices or dealt with too lightly pre attack. Big problem in UK is in my view concern re race, authorities are terrified of being held to be acting in a racist manner given that these days terrorist tends to be muslim. That issue is not helped by our own politicians. If their is intelligence and concern re a person and terrorism then they should not be simply left to wander our streets. What's the answer internment didn't work in Northern Ireland in fact it was proved to be a breeding ground for terrorists. I don't know the answer but I do believe that we need to be more assertive and proactive and maybe if there is concern detention untill authorities are fully satisfied re terrorist intentions, problem is that leads to qauntanamo! Of course ordinary People also want to enjoy their life and don't want to live their life in a locked down state. Bit of a catch 22 situation really.