No PC .
No excuse.

Just like child abuse , child pornography , and paedophilia.

Anyone contacting , interacting , publishing , downloading , planning , threatening , or doing anything related that is or could be a part of a threat to society ,
BANG , into a concentration camp prison.

Any caught actually in the process of preparing to or acting , that's treason , instant execution .
(preferably , by hanging until dead , very dead , in public . by a remote roadside in the middle of nowhere ,
unannounced
Nothing honourable or respectful , just eliminated)

No pussyfooting about.
Not a fucking holiday camp ,
a proper no rights no privileges , hard yards prison camp.

A starting point of 20 years preventive detention ,
with no automatic right of release.

Prison camps sighted in the remotest hellhole possible , in the Arctic preferably or as close as possible.

Spitsbergen comes to mind.
Extreme northern Scotland , the outer islands , northern Norway or Sweden.
Northern Canada islands , Greenland

Prisoners have to put all their efforts into surviving , (or not). providing for themselves and their own needs.

All the army has to do is contain them , by any means , and eliminate any wanna be escapees , plotters , or mutineers.

Of course no one will have the balls to do anything like ,
unfortunately ,
But.
Putting them on a watch list is just a bad joke.
Trying to keep track of them all , the same.
It is not possible.

Under a deceleration of war , you either tow the line of the country you reside in , get out , or your committing treason.
They can never be trusted.
never.
No such thing as rehabilitation for them.


It's not like the world needs them.
The planet would be a lot better off if half the humans on it were "disappeared"

What about any innocents ?
Well in every war , some innocents die , that's just how it is.
Guilty by association , is still guilty.

At the rate innocents have been slaughtered and butchered in recent years ,
it would still be an improvement.

 

Religion has taken many, many lives over the centuries...religion will continue to take many, many more lives in future centuries to come.

Unless of course the Glaciers melt, and flood the planet.

 

You already have that, and it doesn't work very well.

None of these countries will participate in that in any shape or form.

Aside from the fact that the US hasn't declared war in half a century and is not wont to do so, despite continuous war efforts, you cannot declare war on a thing. You can only declare war on a country or an entity. "Terrorism" isn't any of that, and it's just too fuzzily defined. Also, keep in mind that most terrorist acts are committed by right-wing extremists.

You, of course, are in the other half. How convenient.

If that's "just how it is", why don't you sign up voluntarily?

No, it's not. "Guilt by association" is the exact opposite of that, it's NEVER guilty. In fact, it's used as an example of how NOT to be guilty.

No, it wouldn't. Terrorism has been in sharp decline over the past decades and now poses no greater a risk than getting hit by lightning. There is no widespread danger coming from terrorism. Stop hyperventilating.

 

If we did declare war on terrorists, what would it look like?

 

We already are at war. Have been since 1997 when Bin Laden declared war on the west.
And we are not winning.
But, we have a new sheriff in town.
The arrogant, elite, unsupporter leftists don't like it, and will complain bitterly but that's a problem they need to deal with.
The Sheriff has business to take care of.

 

Yes that new sheriff really told the Saudis didn't he?

Thinskin

 

Nothing fights radical islamists better than selling them a lot of weapons.

 

Its interesting , but as I knew of course ,
we can't do that .

We can't declare war on terrorists ?
But we can on paedophiles ?

We're already at war ?

Well fuck me , why are we just putting the enemy on a watchlist for a couple of years , and then loosing track of them ?
Why are we letting them go overseas , then return to put their training into effect ?

I think war has gotten way to pc in that case.

 

There are rules for war. We can't just have a war where one group tries to kill another group. We have to let the government make up a set of rules.
It doesn't seem to matter that no one ever goes by the rules. It sounds good and makes for an excuse to break our own rules.

 

The Second Barbary War (1815), also known as the Algerine or Algerian War, was the second of two wars fought between the United States and the Ottoman Empire's North African regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algeria known collectively as the Barbary states. The war between the Barbary States and the U.S. ended in 1815; the international dispute would effectively be ended the following year by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The war brought an end to the American practice of paying tribute to the pirate states and helped mark the beginning of the end of piracy in that region, which had been rampant in the days of Ottoman domination (16th–18th centuries). Within decades, European powers built ever more sophisticated and expensive ships which the Barbary pirates could not match in numbers or technology.

 

By that definition does that mean I should be jailed for being part of the revolt against Trump ??????????

I am willing to help fund (pay my share through a donation to the cause) anyone that puts him into a bad light IN A PEACEFUL MANNER ONLY !!!

 

And one of the rules of war , has always been ,
you lock up the enemy ,
For the duration.

That is why we'd actually declare war ,
and declare the enemy WILL be treated as ENEMY , under conditions of war.

At the moment , there are hundreds of known enemy , on watch lists , and or lost to authorities ,
and thousands more "possibly dangerous" ,
all relatively free to roam the world ,
with no accountability ,
almost no risk of confinement ,
effectively no restrictions on amassing weapons etc .
or spreading their brand , and recruiting.

That's nonsense.

Who in history allowed their active enemy free and unfettered reign in their own country ?

 

The Bush administration did it for years allowing the Bin Laden family and others free access to the USA ...

Who knows how many sleeper cells they still have there !!!

 

No, can't do that either. Both are crimes and crimes are a police matter.

 

There shouldn't be rules for war. If a war is declared every single enemy man, woman, or child should be killed on sight.
If you are not willing to do that then there is no use declaring war. It is just a game where some people get rich and some people get killed.

 

Now. Don't take this to mean I agree with slutwolf. I dont. I think he's as much of a knob as you are.

But are you actually fucking mental? In the last 25 years around 50 people were killed by lightning in the UK.

http://www.torro.org.uk/lightning_info.php

Whereas 80 have been killed by islamic terrorism alone in the last 10 years.

Terrorism, Islamic or otherwise is a very credible threat. The government obviously see it the same way. Otherwise there would not be soldiers on the streets. And if you took your leftie blinkers off for two minutes, you would see it too.

 

We should declare war, total war on Radical Islam. The question is what would that mean or look like?

 

We could declare war on countries that encourage, protect, and train terrorist.
Might make it easier to actually win.

 

(Datagraver)

(NBC News)

By that logic, Saddam Hussein was a credible threat, and so was Argentinia. Right-wing governments like the May (and Cameron) led Tories like to deploy soldiers and play up the scare of foreign threats in order to push domestic policies through that would otherwise be met with resistance.

 

No, I do get it. You want to deal with this terrorism thing hard and head on, and wipe it off the face of the earth. But it's not as easy as that. Terrorism has a long and bloody history, and if anything is to be learned from that, it's that violence begets more violence. Terrorists aren't stopped by soldiers, they are bred by soldiers.

Crimes are crimes. Even in war times, murder is murder and is being dealt with according to a civil manner. The rules aren't all suspended, just because there's a war going on.

In fact, if terrorists were to be dealt under the rule of war, they'd be treated as enemy soldiers and couldn't be indefinitely detained and tortured. The way it stands, the rules are harsher than under the rule of war.

War has always been as "PC" as you call it. Even during the (extremely bloody and deadly) World Wars there have been rules regarding the treatment of captured soldiers and the civilian population.

On the other hand, if you want to suspend all rights for "terrorists" (assuming it can be done), then who decides who's a terrorist? Because that's a very convenient thing to do, and ripe for abuse.