So your answer is.....while recognising that the kind of people who do this thing are 'nutjobs' that we should continue to work with prevent?....when you look into their backgrounds they aren't all nutjobs anyway....they are violently anti western through religious interpretation.

Is this the kind of thing that sounds ok talking around a dinner table with other civilized people perhaps....I think that perhaps it does.

I'm not going to say that 'prevent' is totally useless because if it stops one disenfranchised person then in raw terms it does something but in reality it is hugely ineffective.....and for blindingly obvious reasons.

The people who do these kinds of things aren't going to take pep talks from the 'enemy', even from within their communities. You can't 'prevent' family cultural attitudes, you can't 'prevent' pious understandings of religious texts, you can't 'prevent' them mixing with like minded friends.....You can't 'prevent' the Internet playing on them and twisting them.

As we are going to play the unlikely game of 'reform' then the only realistic chance is working through the mosques.....I would have them all sign up to a declaration that they support the separation of mosque and state and accept British law instead of Sharia.

Outside of them, you can't 'prevent' those on watch lists. Sod internment, if a judge agrees that there is enough evidence then they should be deported after reaching a financial agreement with a country like Turkey. If they don't accept western values then they can live in a country that is rapidly removing them anyway.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Aug 2017 1.32pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Who is talking about interfering? The matter is about trade.

If I give you money for cutting my grass and you give me money for mending your roof it is not legally my fault how you spend your half of the money....besides my money is a fraction of what you have coming in

Of course I may disapprove of how you spend it but the law is quite clear about it.

So again, all you do is strengthen far less ethical regimes still further.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Aug 2017 2.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Well forgive me....what you on about?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Apparently it was a lone policeman who shot dead 4 of the 5 guys in the car. No doubt the European Court of F'in Nonsense will be on his case - racially aggravated unlawful killing I expect.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Looking like there might be some more enrichment in Finland. Unconfirmed as a terror attack at present. Incorrect attribution to ISIS, as someone (seriously!) mixed up someone shouting "Varokaa" ("Watch out" in Finnish) with an enricher asking directions to Alan's Snackbar.

Genuine question. Because the combined number of enrichment victims appears to not motivate genuine action, nor does any one event (save for offering epileptic fits to Parisians, given the rapidity with which the Eiffel tower changes flag):

How many victims in one atrocity will it take for some profound, concerted, coordinated action? At what point do we move beyond the shoulder shrugging "let's light another tea light"?

Do 100 have to die? 300? 1000? If ISIS were to slaughter 1000 people somehow in, say, Dublin. Would May's "enough is enough" finally mean something other than empty rhetoric? Remember when she actually said that? lol

Sorry, you're trying to suggest that US foreign policy didn't change much after 9/11? Or that the-cancer-that-shall-not-be-named spread despite US reaction to 9/11? Or because of? Whatever your stance (and it's futile postulating hypothetical branches of reality), to suggest that fairly significant action was taken post 9/11 is... odd....