Van hits 6 on London bridge.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thought crime is bad, lets not.

Technically I think that's pre-crime.

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[Ambarii]

I'd argue that it sets a very good precedent. That extremism, hate, advocating violence won't be tolerated.

Thought crime is bad, lets not.

Inciting disorder and violence is also bad. Lets.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Technically I think that's pre-crime.

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

[Mattopilos II]

Damn shame, and hopefully measures are put in place to both prevent the event from happening again, but also not to get a shit-stirring session that leads to further unrest.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

I don't know about the U.K., but in the US conspiracy crimes are a thing.

[Olerand]

A tragic event. From what we know thus far, which is obviously very little, I would hazard to say that it was mostly unavoidable.

[Torrocca]

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

It seems like less than two weeks ago I was on another one of these threads, always sad to have to discus terrorism.

[Washington Resistance Army]

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

And everyone else without much difficulty.

[Mattopilos II]

A tragic event. From what we know thus far, which is obviously very little, I would hazard to say that it was mostly unavoidable.

With the current political environment, I would have to agree. There is a tug-of-war there politically that is hurting the possibility of Muslim integration into society, as well as preventative measures from radical acts of violence from religious extremists.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Damn shame, and hopefully measures are put in place to both prevent the event from happening again, but also not to get a shit-stirring session that leads to further unrest.

The question ulitimately becomes though, what measures can prevent something like this, and at what point are you just imprisoning yourself?

[Ambarii]

Technically I think that's pre-crime.

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Oh, but allowing a group of people to express their views freely who want to wage a war against "non-believers" isn't dangerous?

[Nakena]

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

Radical Islamism (specifically salafism etc.) is a totalitarian ideology bent on (among other things) destroying the west as it exist. Theres no appeasement to it, to the contrary that will be likely interpreted as weakness anyways.

I believe the very existence of an such a religiously loaded totalitarism is something that kept being failed to be understood by most mainstream minded westeners.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Oh, but allowing a group of people to express their views freely who want to wage a war against "non-believers" isn't dangerous?

Much less dangerous than the shit you're proposing, yes.

[Mattopilos II]

Damn shame, and hopefully measures are put in place to both prevent the event from happening again, but also not to get a shit-stirring session that leads to further unrest.

The question ulitimately becomes though, what measures can prevent something like this, and at what point are you just imprisoning yourself?

Exactly. If the answer was simple and clear-cut, then the problem wouldn't exist as it does now.

[Olerand]

A tragic event. From what we know thus far, which is obviously very little, I would hazard to say that it was mostly unavoidable.

With the current political environment, I would have to agree. There is a tug-of-war there politically that is hurting the possibility of Muslim integration into society, as well as preventative measures from radical acts of violence from religious extremists.

Not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of it is extremely difficult to find and foil terrorist attacks that utilize such "rudimentary" measures as driving a car into a crowd, or knifing people on the street.

Britain can certainly do more against its home grown Islamists and the increasing radicalization, fundamentalism, and conservatism that is arising in its Muslim communities.

[Corrian]

Technically I think that's pre-crime.

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Considering all the things I think of on a regular basis and DON'T do because I'm not stupid, pretty sure most of us would go to jail if thoughts were a way to be someone that commits a crime.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

Hypothetically speaking, how many dead and wounded before that gets put on the table?

[Mattopilos II]

With the current political environment, I would have to agree. There is a tug-of-war there politically that is hurting the possibility of Muslim integration into society, as well as preventative measures from radical acts of violence from religious extremists.

Not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of it is extremely difficult to find and foil terrorist attacks that utilize such "rudimentary" measures as driving a car into a crowd, or knifing people on the street.

Britain can certainly do more against its home grown Islamists and the increasing radicalization, fundamentalism, and conservatism that is arising in its Muslim communities.

Yes and no... there is a point where you basically get into 1984 territory for the sake of "preventative measures". They can do more, but what out of those options will be most constructive in the future?
And yeah, that is a fair point. Kinda hard to stop a car like you can a man running at you and being noticeable. I mean, you can stop the car, but that will cost lives, maybe even more than waiting for them to blunder and crash.

[Ambarii]

Oh, but allowing a group of people to express their views freely who want to wage a war against "non-believers" isn't dangerous?

Much less dangerous than the shit you're proposing, yes.

And how is that?

[Neo Balka]

You're suggesting appeasement then? Appease the islamist in the vain hope that they will refrain from comitting violent acts or provide an environment for those.

Its not going to work too out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -them.html

What's the alternative? We can't genocide the Muslim population in the UK. So we keep talking and we keep promoting peace.

While people die.

[Mattopilos II]

What's the alternative? We can't genocide the Muslim population in the UK. So we keep talking and we keep promoting peace.

While people die.

AS opposed to the other option, where more people die.

[Neo Balka]

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

Hypothetically speaking, how many dead and wounded before that gets put on the table?

Until London Resembles the blitz i guess.

[Olerand]

Not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of it is extremely difficult to find and foil terrorist attacks that utilize such "rudimentary" measures as driving a car into a crowd, or knifing people on the street.

Britain can certainly do more against its home grown Islamists and the increasing radicalization, fundamentalism, and conservatism that is arising in its Muslim communities.

Yes and no... there is a point where you basically get into 1984 territory for the sake of "preventative measures". They can do more, but what out of those options will be most constructive in the future?
And yeah, that is a fair point. Kinda hard to stop a car like you can a man running at you and being noticeable. I mean, you can stop the car, but that will cost lives, maybe even more than waiting for them to blunder and crash.

None, almost none of the "preventative measures" work, short of the old school infiltrate and destroy measures that domestic intelligence agencies still do.

But Britain does not fight the ideological battle. Many in Britain, and the British State itself, are content with the rise of Islamic conservatism in their communities, because that's the "tolerant" thing to believe in and whatever.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Much less dangerous than the shit you're proposing, yes.

And how is that?

Do you really not see how your idea could very quickly spiral out of control?

Who decides what extremism is? How long are they incarcerated? Does it only apply to Islam or does it apply to other religions as well? What about extreme political positions like those on the far right and far left?

There's a fucking huge potential for abuse there.