• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brussels explosions

Higgins86 said:
Extreme example but during the Blitz people gave up a lot of freedoms for the greater good, why should this be different?
Click to expand...

You'll have to give me examples Higgs. I don't see anything similar to what you propose.

Higgins86 said:
Do you fear our government IC?
Click to expand...

Short question, long answer - so I'll cut it to some examples, both sides (of Parliament) cut our military and failed to meet our NATO obligations, both sides were involved in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Both sides supported war in Iraq when the real case was Afghanistan, both sides lied to the UK population in the 70's about what we joined or stood to benefit from in the EU. Both sides were involved in parliamentary expenses abuses.

If you're referring to the "if you have nothing to fear, then you'd carry an ID card" argument I've heard before, I would carry one - I just don't trust it will be efficient. We could give up freedoms here but as some experts pointed out today, we have porous borders in Turkey, we have poor surveillance in Eastern Europe where passport scanners aren't even connected to any databases to track criminals.

So, short answer, I'd trust them if there was greater reason to do so.

Grant said:
You're already giving it up ~
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be more worried about mexicans turning the Americas brown and you losing your language?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You'll have to give me examples Higgs. I don't see anything similar to what you propose.



Short question, long answer - so I'll cut it to some examples, both sides (of Parliament) cut our military and failed to meet our NATO obligations, both sides were involved in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Both sides supported war in Iraq when the real case was Afghanistan, both sides lied to the UK population in the 70's about what we joined or stood to benefit from in the EU. Both sides were involved in parliamentary expenses abuses.

If you're referring to the "if you have nothing to fear, then you'd carry an ID card" argument I've heard before, I would carry one - I just don't trust it will be efficient. We could give up freedoms here but as some experts pointed out today, we have porous borders in Turkey, we have poor surveillance in Eastern Europe where passport scanners aren't even connected to any databases to track criminals.

So, short answer, I'd trust them if there was greater reason to do so.



Shouldn't you be more worried about mexicans turning the Americas brown and you losing your language?
Click to expand...


The National Registration Act 1939
 
Higgins86 said:
The National Registration Act 1939
Click to expand...

Ah, cheers. Did a bit of reading around this.

  • The first national register (1915-1919), and accompanying identity card, was a failure, and the second (1939-1952) a partial success. The success of the second system was secured by analysing the causes of the failure of the first.
  • Universal registration systems have repeatedly been proposed as solutions to short-lived moral panics. But there is little evidence that national registers effectively resolve such panics.
  • Public indifference or hostility to identity cards was managed by building 'parasitic vitality' into the second experience. In particular, the system of national registration was intimately connected to the system of food rationing. Without similar 'parasitic vitality', contemporary proposals can be expected to struggle to win acceptance.
  • Even so, the historical record also reveals the diverse unofficial, including criminal, uses of identity cards.
Link.
Click to expand...

Basically ID cards were a partial success in WW2, acceptance only gained by linking them to ration cards but they were open to abuse. Then, there's this advice from ISIS regarding ID cards and similar.

[h=1]Isil's security advice to would-be jihadists: Shave your beard, encrypt your phones and wear western clothes[/h][h=2]Isil issues "dos and don'ts" advice for lone wolf attackers who want to avoid security services detection[/h]~
Leave behind the prayer mat, take some cash, and if you have fake documents, make sure they have the same name in them.
“A lot of brothers have been caught because of that,” it says. “So try as much as you can to have all your documents bearing the same name: ID card, passport, driver’s licence.”
Link.
Click to expand...
 
ID cards do squat.

France has them, Spain has them, heck, Belgium has them. Fat load of good they did.
 
Chagos said:
ID cards do squat.

France has them, Spain has them, heck, Belgium has them. Fat load of good they did.
Click to expand...

And the armed police and soldiers at the airport did not stop the attack.
 
zyzygy said:
And the armed police and soldiers at the airport did not stop the attack.
Click to expand...
They have this annoying propensity for hesitation when it comes to opening fire on an otherwise faceless crowd, alone just on suspicion.

Where's the SS when you need them?
 
Probably in the Conservative Party, if you believe half the Left.
 
Orly? said:
Yeah, no big deal right? Bombs in crowded airports really aren't all that dangerous..
Click to expand...

Not compared to other hazards. We are after all talking only a relatively small number of people harmed. The main problem is the visibility because of the large individual event size. In that it resembles an airplane crash. Having said that, there are good reasons to quash such activities savagely. That does not men that the economic or societal damage should be exaggerated, more the contrary.
 
What do you suggest, to warn we in the bigots? Signs, cones and speaker announcements?

'The wrong type of bomb on the line?'

9/11 only killed a few people, in regard the rest of the New York population, as did Pearl Harbor.

What the hell perspective are you after??
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Shouldn't you be more worried about mexicans turning the Americas brown and you losing your language?
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no chance of that at all. Mexicans are working in Canada now with documentation. They are interviewed once a year five years after which, with a clean record, they become residents. After 10 years they can become Canadian citizens. I've talked to many of these people (I speak Spanish) and everyone seems very pleased with the program.

Latin America is an excellent source for immigrants if done in an orderly fashion. They are far preferable to those from Islamic countries, for a number of reasons.
 
Originally Posted by Orly? View Post
Yeah, no big deal right? Bombs in crowded airports really aren't all that dangerous..

joG said:
Not compared to other hazards. We are after all talking only a relatively small number of people harmed. The main problem is the visibility because of the large individual event size. In that it resembles an airplane crash. Having said that, there are good reasons to quash such activities savagely. That does not men that the economic or societal damage should be exaggerated, more the contrary.
Click to expand...

So it's not that bad? The main problem is visibility because people know about it? People that are fed up with this are just exaggerating?

Way to sympathize for terrorists..
 
Orly? said:
Originally Posted by Orly? View Post
Yeah, no big deal right? Bombs in crowded airports really aren't all that dangerous..



So it's not that bad? The main problem is visibility because people know about it? People that are fed up with this are just exaggerating?

Way to sympathize for terrorists..
Click to expand...

Why don't you think about this swarm behavior and the consequences a bit. Then we can try again.
 
joG said:
Why don't you think about this swarm behavior and the consequences a bit. Then we can try again.
Click to expand...

I refuse to join your misplaced blame game..
 
joG said:
Not compared to other hazards. We are after all talking only a relatively small number of people harmed. The main problem is the visibility because of the large individual event size. In that it resembles an airplane crash. Having said that, there are good reasons to quash such activities savagely. That does not men that the economic or societal damage should be exaggerated, more the contrary.
Click to expand...
There were 300 'harmed' and over 30 murdered. You're comparing Muslims to a 'hazard' and rightly so, but what to do about this 'hazard. Any ideas?
 
Grant said:
There were 300 'harmed' and over 30 murdered. You're comparing Muslims to a 'hazard' and rightly so, but what to do about this 'hazard. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

As a socio-economic problem there are certain differences. Making a hullabaloo about a bus accident won't usually persuade other bus drivers to crash.
 
joG said:
As a socio-economic problem there are certain differences. Making a hullabaloo about a bus accident won't usually persuade other bus drivers to crash.
Click to expand...
Two poins. The first is that what happened in Brussels (or Paris, etc.) was no accident.

Secondly there are engineers and other public officials who do their best to make buses as safe as possible.

How do you propose we keep the public safe from Muslims who are out to murder as many kaffir as they can?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom