[Miscellaneous]

The more I read the more convinced I become that holding the moral high ground to claim being civilised is more important than any number of innocent British civilian lives, women, children and me alike.

It's not as simple or black and white as that. However an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a very primitive response. If we throw away the moral high ground, how do we then judge rapists, murderers, terrorists, rioters etc. etc.

We have to establish some moral standards and then develop systems of justice that reflect those and then stick to them as best we can. In this context "we" is everybody and that's why engaging marginalised citizens through education and other initiatives is so important. There is then less motivation for them to do bad things. We are unlikely to eliminate the mentally ill or plain evil and we need sensible ways to deal with them too.

That's all very commendable, John, however not being able to deal with rapists, murders etc is a non starter as a reason for not dealing with terrorism in an appropriate fashion.

Commendable as your post is I find it incredibly frustrating that you don't seem to see that the theory is failing as more innocents die!

What I find more frustrating is the focus on what we can't do.

[NickA]

I'm in agreement with Johnm and Flyin Dutch. The comparison with the IRA is legitimate and we should attempt to solve the situation by lawful means. Human rights are just that, and they are not rights at all if only allocated to certain categories of humans. It is interesting too to consider that there are far fewer Brits killed by terrorists now compared to the 70s and 80s, and probably before, so it isn't as if the situation is deteriorating across the board. This is not to say it isn't a problem of the highest order. It is.

[romille]

It is interesting too to consider that there are far fewer Brits killed by terrorists now compared to the 70s and 80s, and probably before, so it isn't as if the situation is deteriorating across the board. This is not to say it isn't a problem of the highest order. It is.

Surely it is not just about British lives, are the lives of innocent civilians from other nations somehow less valued. IS have systematically wiped out whole villages with hundreds of people, simply because they did not agree with their ideology and that should not be forgotten. IS are barbaric butchers who seem to derive pleasure from causing misery and suffering and killing in a most brutal fashion, that is something that we should never forget.

[FlarePath]

The comparison with the IRA is legitimate and we should attempt to solve the situation by lawful means.

This really is unbelievable.

Comparing an internal political fight to an IS world of Sharia law dominated stone-age living, enforced by burning alive,beheading and torturing of those who are not of their persuation is totally wrong IMHO. As barbaric some of the IRA acts of murder and criminality were, they were pussy cats compared to this murderous rabble.

[NickA]

Regrettably, this has happened all over. Germany, Rwanda, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Chechnya... I'm sure the perpetrators all felt entitled to execute populations - justifying it with their superior ideology. That is precisely why we cannot invoke the same justification and simultaneously preserve our aspiration to civilisation ourselves. It's a balance to strike and it isn't easy or simple. There is no course of action without costs.

[Jim Jones]

What I find more frustrating is the focus on what we can't do.

What we can't do is break our own laws and morality. Once someone is in the UK, regardless of nationality, then due process must occur.

[johnm]

This is a complicated issue and we have to treat IS fighters in the Middle East differently from IS sympathisers being terrorists back home, even though some individuals might have played both roles.

IS fighters in the middle east are arguably enemy soldiers/defectors and vulnerable as such, as they are in effect fighting a civil war. They could also be criminals due to an obscure piece of UK legislation that forbids UK citizens joining foreign armies, though I don't think any successful prosecutions have ever been brought.
It was last tried in the Spanish Civil war as far as I'm aware. We and others are aligned with various states (some not very savoury) seeking to defeat these rebels, so they are fighting for the enemy with all that implies.

Sympathisers being terrorists here are just like any other terrorist here and subject to the same sanctions through the justice system.

[Miscellaneous]

What I find more frustrating is the focus on what we can't do.

What we can't do is break our own laws and morality. Once someone is in the UK, regardless of nationality, then due process must occur.

I say again, Jim, we should apply the law, however our laws are not up to the job. Let's not forget laws and for that matter morality, are not cast in stone and are dynamic.

With respect your post is a good example of what I mean by focussing on what we can't do.

What we can't do is singular and tends to lead to a conclusion of nothing.

What can we do opens the mind to seeking solutions and in this case that is relatively easy to see. Change our laws.

Or/and declare war.

[NickA]

What change in the law would you suggest?

[FlarePath]

The first and non-lethal would be to have the balls to revoke passports of all who have taken up with Isis cause abroad and ban from entering country.

[cockney steve]

AIUI, , until somebody is "landside", IE , They've cleared Immigration, they are not deemed to be in the UK. Therefore, Airside, Take their passport, give them a letter stating they've forfeited their UK citizenship and are deemed to be an Undesirable alien, Put back on the first flight back to the sandy place from whence they came.
This will allow them repatriation to the "civilisation" they were so keen to espouse and enjoy and make their peace with the local populace who's ideologies may not be quite in the same alignment.
Those who went out on humanitarian grounds but not under the auspices of a recognised Aid Agency, should be repatriated on a special visa and monitored until the authority can be sure they are genuine and not undercover terrorists.
Any "out there" in a combat situation, are fair game for a 50p lead-poisoning. a more humane despatch than they accord their victims, whilst demonstrating that our Civilisation is superior,swifter and kinder in it's execution (so to speak)

[Jim Jones]

AIUI, , until somebody is "landside", IE , They've cleared Immigration, they are not deemed to be in the UK. Therefore, Airside, Take their passport, give them a letter stating they've forfeited their UK citizenship and are deemed to be an Undesirable alien, Put back on the first flight back to the sandy place from whence they came

.

Who would make this decision? Based on what evidence that they are IS? ( confession evidence alone is not usually enough now). Would an appeal be allowed?

[nallen]

The first and non-lethal would be to have the balls to revoke passports of all who have taken up with Isis cause abroad and ban from entering country.

Already been/being done.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/30/uk-has-stripped-150-jihadists-and-criminals-of-citizenship

[NickA]

As Nallen says, Flare path's idea is already extant.

Cockney Steve, how do you, in drawing up a law, determine who should have to forfeit their citizenship ? At an airport? Even if you could, where would you repatriate them, as they no longer would possess citizenship of any country? No country would accept them. What about the person that goes over there, under duress from their husband/parents and wants to return? Etc?

The idea is frankly bonkers.

[FlarePath]

Already been/being done.

Excellent news. I'm glad they read what I said and did it.

Must come up with some other good idea's