I find the people who love getting outraged at

[Burney]

How long do you intend to hold these 1000 people for.... few weeks, months, years? And what % would you be comfortable with that are completely innocent??

Indefinitely. I would obviously subject them to de-radicalisation/deprogramming in the hope of turning them into decent human beings, but where that seems impossible, I'd keep them locked up indefinitely since they are plainly a threat to innocent people.

As to the slim possibility of them being innocent - do you mean 'innocent' like Moazzam Begg who 'went on holiday' to Afghanistan and in a terrible mix-up ended up getting caught by coalition forces and put in Guantanamo? That sort of 'innocent'? I'm intensely comfortable with that possibility if it means preventing acts of terror on our streets.

[Pokster]

Indefinitely. I would obviously subject them to de-radicalisation/deprogramming in the hope of turning them into decent human beings, but where that seems impossible, I'd keep them locked up indefinitely since they are plainly a threat to innocent people.

As to the slim possibility of them being innocent - do you mean 'innocent' like Moazzam Begg who 'went on holiday' to Afghanistan and in a terrible mix-up ended up getting caught by coalition forces and put in Guantanamo? That sort of 'innocent'? I'm intensely comfortable with that possibility if it means preventing acts of terror on our streets.

So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.

you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.

[Burney]

So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.

you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

[Rich]

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

[Pokster]

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

If I knew how to find it i would gladly do it.. it is when you claimed Andy Hayman knew bugger all about terrorism and was a sympathiser... he just happened to be in charge of anti terrorism and my wife worked for him.