So, are you saying that if someone is being "watched" by the security services, that we intern them.
Lock them up indefinitely, just in case or, in this case ban someone born in Britain, from re entering the UK.
Whilst the sentiment is good, I just dont see how it can happen.
Those that have gone to fight/support in Syria and then come back to the UK, again, do we lock them up in some Guantanamo type compound and again, how long for.
I am not defending these mindless terrorists but, some of the suggestions coming out in the wake of this atrocity just dont work.
Is there a known target where we can "hit back" and what effect would this have ?
Would it help to solve the problem or aid the recruitment process for ISIS. ?

That's exactly what we do have to worry about; the more disaffected and disenfranchised these people are made to feel, the more open they are to being radicalised and exploited by ISIS and its ilk.

I understand that people feel hurt and want to hit back - but we've been bombing these places for years, and as at least one party leader has had the bottle to point out today, that has played a large part in creating the problem.

some of these things can happen if there is a will to make them happen. Will they work? impossible to say, but you won't know unless you try.

Obviously ISIS and the extremists out there, we will not be able to completely eliminate... they are living amongst us and those willing to die for a cause by any means, how do you stop that? you can't is the simple answer but again we have to make it as difficult as possible for them to operate and i think that is far from the case at the moment.

Or you make a knee jerk reaction and make things far worse because you did it with no idea of whether it would work or not.

If it's impossible to say then don't do it. The consequences are too serious for making policy on a whim. You need to properly weigh up the evidence.

There is no simple solution IMO. A lot of things need to happen and it can't just be done in this country. It needs to happen elsewhere too.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... um=twitter Maybe security services need to improve a bit too?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... um=twitter Maybe security services need to improve a bit too?

How exactly do you plan to "make it as difficult as possible for them to operate" ?
Empty words and idle threats may make some people feel better but, it's just rhetoric.

What do you suggest we just let ISIS walk in anywhere they like and do whatever they want? These are not people with whom you can have a rational discussion.

Empty threats and idle words from who? If you are referring to our establishment you are bang on.

I don't think bombing is the answer, never was never will be and it is the contributor as to why we are where we are today imo.

It would be relatively simple for anyone to cause multiple deaths, with far, far worse casualties than Manchester. There is nothing we can do to prevent it, save locking everyone up. The best we can do is create an environment where people do not want to do it because they identify it is morally wrong.

Yes but are talking about real life not idealistic wonderment.

Do you think you could have talked Hitler out of doing what he did or Pol Pot or the genocide in Rwanda?

I know you like to pretend an air of intellectual superiority over anyone with liberal views with your smug, patronising tone, but don't talk such crap. The type of terrorist acts we are discussing are carried out by impressionable individuals, not the dictators who manipulate them. The most peaceful countries in the world tend to be those with stable economies, with state control over key industries, with smaller extremes in wages, with strong health & social policies, with a constructive approach to their penal systems, who don't wage wars abroad for egotistical reasons.

All military action is carried out by impressionable individuals - you do see the generals on the front line.

The most peaceful countries in the world tend to be small and insignificant - like the ones in Scandinavia - they have no influence on the world stage. They can't wage wars as they don't have the resources to fund them.

I have asked time and again show me a true Socialist country i.e. the state generates the wealth where the population are happy and relatively wealthy. I know big business is bad in your eyes but somebody has to generate the wealth to do all the touchy-feely stuff you value.

Which part of my post could possibly have been interpreted as me advocating ISIS being allowed to do whatever they want?



And I've provided you with a list of at least 5 countries who deliver the type of socialism that JC is proposing; and you failed to respond. Instead, you use the typical right wing strategy of creating a false dichotomy, then arguing against the position that you pretend your opponents have taken... For clarity - I don't see anyone proposing a text book socialist model, so you can save your typing fingers arguing against it.