new concession for terror bill.

[grannyclaret]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

The threat of terroism affects us all and for your information although we may not be at uni we do know the meaning of words we quote without resorting "look them up" as you put it. You are trying and belittle people and it just don't wash!

now here is a little word for you all to look up in the dictionary,,,"""SLY"""WHICH ALL POLITITIONS SEEM TO BE....

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Rindi can I ask you which you think is the best at preventing terrorists from killing. Security services or increasing detention without charge from 28 to 42 days?

When it comes to protecting the innocent, and safeguarding national security, I want both, which I've already answered.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

When it comes to protecting the innocent, and national security, I want both, which I've already answered.

Which would you say is the most important if you had one or the other?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Which would you say is the most important if you had one or the other?

Irrelevant.

That's like saying which do you want more in a war, the navy or the army?

We should be using everything in our power to fight this evil, and that means an adequate security service, and detention without charge, if needed.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Irrelevant.

That's like saying which do you want more in a war, the navy or the army?

We should be using everything in our power to fight this evil, and that means an adequate security service, and detention without charge, if needed.

Not irrelevant at all. Quite relevant. Now, which is the most important of the two, security information or increased detention to 42 days?

You're sounding more and more like a politician every time you refuse to answer!

[Rosencrantz]

Originally Posted by garinda

Perhaps your views are a little coloured, and prejudiced.

You said in another thread, and I quote.

'Starting a war against something as vague as "terrorism" is a little absurd!'
http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...tml#post535578

It probably doesn't seem vague to the two little children who live in our town, and whose mother was killed by the London bus bomb.

Yeah, to CHILDREN. You know what else doesn't seem vague to children? Why, when faced with a budget cut, Thatcher would take their milk and invest in primary schools. Would you rather have milk or a quality school? To an adult the answer is obvious. Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid? Have you ever seen Newsround? "I wish all the bad people would stop being bad and be good and then the world would be good."

Just as in business, the management of a country should not be entirely driven by empathy and love and bunny rabbits with little hearts above their heads. The death of 20-odd during 7/7 should not mean we turn into a nation of cowards. Similarly, the death of 100 soldiers in Afghanistan is not an argument for us never to have invaded.

I stand by my statement. Fighting an idea is stupid. A physical fight is against a nation or a group of people. Terrorism is a method - and idea. We may as well be going to war against "being a meanie" or "not sharing".

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Not irrelevant at all. Quite relevant. Now, which is the most important of the two, security information or increased detention to 42 days?

You're sounding more and more like a politician every time you refuse to answer!

I've answered.

I want both, and there's no earthly reason not to have both, now the Conservative's soft approach to terrorism has been thankfully quashed.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

I've answered.

I want both, and there's no earthly reason not to have both, now the Conservative's soft approach to terrorism has been thankfully quashed.

So you agree that having less security information would be a bad thing?

[BERNADETTE]

Originally Posted by garinda

When it comes to protecting the innocent, and safeguarding national security, I want both, which I've already answered.

I would say they are the same thing, we are innocent and not a threat to national security!!!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid?

Well, that's reached new heights of crassness.

The opinions and feelings of children who have lost a mother to terrorism, and those of their surviving parent, are very valid.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Yeah, to CHILDREN. You know what else doesn't seem vague to children? Why, when faced with a budget cut, Thatcher would take their milk and invest in primary schools. Would you rather have milk or a quality school? To an adult the answer is obvious. Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid? Have you ever seen Newsround? "I wish all the bad people would stop being bad and be good and then the world would be good."

Just as in business, the management of a country should not be entirely driven by empathy and love and bunny rabbits with little hearts above their heads. The death of 20-odd during 7/7 should not mean we turn into a nation of cowards. Similarly, the death of 100 soldiers in Afghanistan is not an argument for us never to have invaded.

I stand by my statement. Fighting an idea is stupid. A physical fight is against a nation or a group of people. Terrorism is a method - and idea. We may as well be going to war against "being a meanie" or "not sharing".

I am quite right-wing in matters of opinion, but you just come across as quite a nasty person Each post seems like an attack rather than a discussion, and I have been offended by things you have said more than once. I don't think you are doing us any favours by being so hard to talk to.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

So you agree that having less security information would be a bad thing?

You'll never make a politician.

Well not a very successful one, if you insist on flogging the horse when it's already dead and buried.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

I am quite right-wing in matters of opinion, but you just come across as quite a nasty person Each post seems like an attack rather than a discussion, and I have been offended by things you have said more than once. I don't think you are doing us any favours by being so hard to talk to.

I take it by 'us' you mean young Conservatives?

I quite agree, he's certainly not.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Yeah, to CHILDREN. You know what else doesn't seem vague to children? Why, when faced with a budget cut, Thatcher would take their milk and invest in primary schools. Would you rather have milk or a quality school? To an adult the answer is obvious. Why the hell would you consider a child's opinion politically valid? Have you ever seen Newsround? "I wish all the bad people would stop being bad and be good and then the world would be good."

Just as in business, the management of a country should not be entirely driven by empathy and love and bunny rabbits with little hearts above their heads. The death of 20-odd during 7/7 should not mean we turn into a nation of cowards. Similarly, the death of 100 soldiers in Afghanistan is not an argument for us never to have invaded.

I stand by my statement. Fighting an idea is stupid. A physical fight is against a nation or a group of people. Terrorism is a method - and idea. We may as well be going to war against "being a meanie" or "not sharing".

Here's some more rope.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

You'll never make a politician.

Well not a very successful one, if you insist on flogging the horse when it's already dead and buried.

You're just avoiding questions.

So yes having less security information would be bad.

Do you think detaining people without charge for an period extended to 42 days without any evidence to justify it ( as you have already conceded) is going to make the Muslim community more likely to be helpful or less?