Internment should be introduced in Europe for suspected Islamic terrorists.
After many recent atrocities by Muslim terrorists throughout Europe we have been informed afterwards that the Muslim perpetrators were known to the police. If the filth had been scooped up and imprisioned for their assossiation with terrosist groups and for activity promoting and/or preparing for acts of terrorism, many innocent people, men women and children, would be alive today. The police are aware of the deadly threat which these scum bag Muslims represent, so would it not be prudent as well as proactive to remove this Islamic disease before it can cause death, injury and destruction?
Yes, clean the streets of filh
Side Score: 2
|
 |
No, counter-productive
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
2
points
We shall start by pretending that this wasn't tried in places like the U.S. during WW2 and has long since been considered a national embarrassment, and continue straight to the point: What standard of evidence would be used to demonstrate association to such groups? Side: No, counter-productive
In such circumstances the assessment/evidence gathered by the security forces would be presented to panels of politicians and professional anti-terrorism experts for their appraisal. Those deemed to be a real threat would be interned, without trial, for an indefinite period. If the filth want to play hard ball, then let them know that there will be a very heavy price to pay. I feel it's not good enough for the various European security forces to announce after a civilian massacre that they were aware of the threat which the Muslim dirt balls posed to civilians. The severity and frequency of these attacks, which are designed to cause maximum civilian carnage, are increasing by the day. This is clear evidence that the anti terrorism measures being employed are failing the people of Europe. To fight terrorism effectively the ''kid gloves'' have to be taken off and the filth given a taste of their own medicine. Of course the civil rights brigade and other such sanctimonious groups as amnesty International will be bellowing their self righteous drivel from the roof tops without offering any realistic alternative. The rants from these pro-terrorist windbags should be ignored and treated as no more than the juvenile rhetoric of a handful of ''do-gooders'' trying to claim the moral high ground. I don't know what happened in the United States during WW2 in this regard, but I do know that it was the Yanks who won the war for the allies on two major theatres of war. I also know that the populations of most western countries are in danger of being blown to smithereens by Muslims every time they go out of their door. By all means criticize my proposal, but do present an alternative to the present, defensive measures of minimizing the civilian death toll. Until the security forces go on the offensive they will always be playing a ''catch up'' role in their fight against the blood thirsty Muslim terrorists. Side: Yes, clean the streets of filh
2
points
In such circumstances the assessment/evidence gathered by the security forces would be presented to panels of politicians and professional anti-terrorism experts for their appraisal. Who determines which politicians and experts would be on such a panel? Those deemed to be a real threat would be interned, without trial, for an indefinite period. What constitutes a real threat, and how can they be legitimately deemed such without a trial? The rants from these pro-terrorist windbags should be ignored and treated as no more than the juvenile rhetoric of a handful of ''do-gooders'' trying to claim the moral high ground. I don't know what happened in the United States during WW2 in this regard, but I do know that it was the Yanks who won the war for the allies on two major theatres of war. Calling them "pro-terrorist windbags" is the most dishonest thing I have ever seen you do on this website. Additionally, WW2 would have been won on the side of the allies even if the U.S. did not join, as the U.S.S.R. was doing all of the hard work. I also know that the populations of most western countries are in danger of being blown to smithereens by Muslims every time they go out of their door. The odds of being killed from a terrorist attack, let alone a Islamic Extremist terrorist attack, is unbelievably small. By all means criticize my proposal, but do present an alternative to the present, defensive measures of minimizing the civilian death toll. Until the security forces go on the offensive they will always be playing a ''catch up'' role in their fight against the blood thirsty Muslim terrorists. Your suggestions would serve as "justification" to the Islamic Extremists. They would go to their communities and point to these Hanging Juries as evidence that the West is corrupt and hates Islam. They would use it as propaganda to increase recruitment. In order to legitimately fight terrorism, one must address the root of the issue. Terrorism is employed when a group, for whatever reason, feels they have no other means of being heard. Now Islamic Fundamentalism will essentially always feel that way, as the overwhelming majority of people, Muslim or otherwise, have no desire to listen to their trash. This means that we need to address the reasons why people would join their groups. This means addressing poverty and destitution in the regions in which they are being recruited. Well educated individuals who have legitimate prospects rarely end up joining terrorist groups. Side: Yes, clean the streets of filh
2
points
I did give a more comprehensive reply but it seems to have been removed. As I don't like to repeat myself I think I'll terminate this particular discussion, but not before I thank you for engaging in my debate. We can cross swords sometime in the future. Side: No, counter-productive
|
