Muslims should expect to be stopped.... - Page 15

11-03-2005, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.

No, I didn't miss the point. The point you were trying to make is just one way of looking at the issue - namely the comparative risk involved.
I was showing how each one could be rationalised, which I thought was important since your view is that anyone that doesn't rationalise it your way is wrong.

"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.

No - it's your evaluation that such is the case.

No, ScaredWebWarrior, these are *demonstrable* and *provable* facts. Trying to dismiss them with superficial "rationalisations" does not change that.

Quote:

And since you have decided that the comparative risks are what you say they are, then everyone else's evaluation of those risks must by your definition be wrong.

Where did I say "everyone else"? Answer, I didn't. There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.

[quopte]Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.[/quote]

What on earth is this nonsense trying to prove, except that you seem to have missed the point again? Try looking at the examples I gave again and see what choices people made (eg use trains/ don't use trains) and the relative dangers of each (more likely to die on the road than on trains) and try to understand what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.

By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"

By actually using our *own* brains for once.

Based on those statements I take it you consider that only you use your brain and only you are impervious to outside influence.

And once again you try to put words into my mouth

I have not said anything of the sort, please don't imply that I have.

Quote:

Since I doubt you did all the research that determined the comparative risks as you describe them I must assume you relied on some other party for that information.

Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.

Take a look at http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brief...tistics_uk.htm

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:

Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1

You are *THREE HUNDRED* times more likely to be killed in a car accident than a rail accident, yet when people were asked whether they would feel safe on the railways, many of them said "no" and that they'd go back to cars!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.

Indeed, any government that tells you it's restricting your personal freedoms for your own good is tyring to act out the 1984 scenario.

But that's not quite how everyone hears it..

That is very evident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.

OK, so we don't know that they're playing some complex psychological game - they might simply be out to kill us all.

Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.

Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.

Here you're asking me for alternative motivations, yet at the same time trying to deduce that "kill the infidel" is inpractical and therefore not a candidate.

Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.

Quote:

Let's look at some alternative motivations. Maybe it is just "kill the infidel" - maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can achieve it. Maybe they believe the person that tells them they can achieve it.

If that person then also uses their religion to colour that belief and next thing we have these people who actually believe that God is helping them to achieve that seemingly impossibe goal.

Beginning to sound a bit like our fanatical extremists, I think.

Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.

Quote:

But I am equally prepared to consider that they envy us for the 'power' that the west has. The fact that we have sex, drugs and rock & roll, and they haven't. In fact, any number of reasons why they are jealous of us.

Or they hate us. For not being Muslims. For being Christians.

Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".

Quote:

Because they still hate us for the Crusades.

I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.

[qutoe]Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.[/quote]

Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)

Quote:

In fact, I don't even think that any number of terrorists all have the same motivation. It's just that the ultimate goal suits them equally.

Again, possibly true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.

That's your conclusion because it suits your argument. It's not in any way the only inevitable conclusion.

No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.

We were suffering casualties from the 'insurgents' from very early on after the defeat of Saddam. That wasn't about pushing out the 'west' to make way for an Islamic state. That was about a group wanting to take control in post-Saddam Iraq. It's just that we won't let them. And boy, do they hate that!

Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?

See also the French Resistance in WWII...!

Quote:

It may well be true that they also want to create an Islamic state - probably along the fundamentalist lines, since that's the most attractive to the power hungry.

Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".

So you think it is more likely that these people think in terms of a 'domino effect' - instill fear, cause governmental restrictions, generate disaffection - rather than simply 'kill' and dominate?

Yes, I do.

Quote:

That wonderful quote, attributed to Sherlock Holmes:

Quote:

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

I think you have taken this to mean that the improbable must be true. I suggest we consider those 'impossibilities' first.

I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.

And, no, I don't think that "the improbable *must* be true", but the "impossibilities" seem a lot less likely to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.

If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.

That is your conclusion, and you love repeating it, but the statement is no stronger for it's repetition, because it is based on your singular line of reasoning.

The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Certainly, as soon as you answer me this one:

A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language is most likely to be:

A) An Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist.

B) An innocent person.

Answer my question first.

Here, I'll repeat it for you again so that you don't have to bother looking it up

The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.

My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Al-Qaedas goal is to make islam the only religion in the world.

We are all infidels and therefore death to us is the only answer, they cannot bear us sharing the same planet as we are an abomination.

Yes, I'm sure that's correct, but I think all but the the most fanatical of them realise that they can't simply kill us all, so they need to find *other* methods of getting rid of us and the first step on that path is to destroy our *societies* and that, I think, is what they aim to do with their attacks.

11-03-2005, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.

Says Master Graham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.

Clear superiority complex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

and try to understand what I'm talking about.
<snip>
Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not about the numbers. It's not about facts and figures. It's about sentient creatures with emotions, not computerised robots.

So your maths is spot on. Wow. Have a gold star.

That doesn't mean you're any better at judging the terrorists motives than I am, or anyone else.

Yet you try to suggest that you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.

Yes, I can really say that - in fact I did. And yes, you can make people believe almost anything, even that the impossible is achievable.
Not having met them, or seen the terrorists CV or academic qualifications, I'm not sure if I can make a valid judgement of their stupidity - clever of you that you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.

And you are the only one that has excluded that possibility without having any evidence, except that to accept the possibility would completely destroy your own pet theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.

(Emphasis mine)

Hang on, I got it wrong. You are saying that maybe you've got that wrong.
So maybe what I said is not so non-sensical or illogical after all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".

I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.

So now you're trying to invalidate my suggested motives by changing them around a bit? Point made being that there are a range of motives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)

Next time they need food/water/medicines we'll send them a few barrels of crude instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.

You've already said that maybe they're not being logical. So they may not be following the pattern you suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?

I was talking immediately after the liberation. At that point nothing had as yet been imposed, yet as soon as Saddam was out of the picture there were others ready to take over where he left off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

See also the French Resistance in WWII...!

Yeah - I notice that as soon as we stormed the Normandy beaches they started pelting us with stones and shooting us. Ever since we liberated them they've been trying to kill us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.

Conan Doyle is not contributing to this debate, so the ropeyness of his argument is not in question here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.
They may not stand up to your scrutiny, but they will to others.
In fact, I don't think it is possible for you to accept the possibility of a flaw in your reasoning, hence you have to dismiss any and all reasoning or evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.

Indeed. Your belief in your own infallibility is only second to your arrogance.

11-03-2005, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

[Edit of comments which contribute nothing to the discussion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

and try to understand what I'm talking about.
<snip>
Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not about the numbers. It's not about facts and figures. It's about sentient creatures with emotions, not computerised robots.

Yes, it's about sentient creatures thinking *emotionally* instead of taking a step back and looking at *FACTS*!!!

Quote:

That doesn't mean you're any better at judging the terrorists motives than I am, or anyone else. Yet you try to suggest that you are.

You are conflating two entirely separate parts of the discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.

yes, you can make people believe almost anything, even that the impossible is achievable.
Not having met them, or seen the terrorists CV or academic qualifications, I'm not sure if I can make a valid judgement of their stupidity - clever of you that you can.

SWW once again, if you want to have a reasonable debate, *please* don't make comments like this because they add nothing to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.

And you are the only one that has excluded that possibility without having any evidence, except that to accept the possibility would completely destroy your own pet theory.

"The only one"? I'm the only one in this *discussion* who *may* have done such a thing, but that's rather a different matter.

And "completely destroy"? Nope, weaken, maybe. Destroy no. Curiously enough, that's what I think the terrorists are trying to do to us...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.

(Emphasis mine)

Hang on, I got it wrong. You are saying that maybe you've got that wrong.
So maybe what I said is not so non-sensical or illogical after all?

I'm saying that perhaps my assumption that you highlight is wrong. However in the absence of any other evidence, I still consider it to be valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".

I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.

So now you're trying to invalidate my suggested motives by changing them around a bit? Point made being that there are a range of motives.

Why do you seem to treat this as some sort of fight? I'm not trying to "invalidate" your suggested motives, but comment on them from *my* viewpoint.

Yes, I agree there are a range of motives that the terrorists have, however the aim of these are to bring about a worldwide Islamic state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)

Next time they need food/water/medicines we'll send them a few barrels of crude instead.

The point is they *have* the crude, but *we* then come in, and buy it all up, yet *they* see little return from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.

You've already said that maybe they're not being logical. So they may not be following the pattern you suggest.

Yes, that's a possibility. I'm not a terrorist, I can't read their minds, but I know what I might try to do were I in their place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?

I was talking immediately after the liberation. At that point nothing had as yet been imposed, yet as soon as Saddam was out of the picture there were others ready to take over where he left off.

Of course, did you expect otherwise? After Germany surrendered in WWII there were groups like the SS Werewolves who ran terror campaigns to try to bring back the Reich.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

See also the French Resistance in WWII...!

Yeah - I notice that as soon as we stormed the Normandy beaches they started pelting us with stones and shooting us. Ever since we liberated them they've been trying to kill us.

Oh dear, have you *really* missed the point *that* badly? I was talking about their reaction to the *GERMAN* invaders...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.

No it doesn't.

<panto>Oh yes it does...</panto>

Care to back that up with something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.

Conan Doyle is not contributing to this debate, so the ropeyness of his argument is not in question here.

You brought the quote up! Now you're saying that the validity of the quote isn't relevant!! Sheesh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.[/quote]

*WHICH* ones?

Quote:

They may not stand up to your scrutiny, but they will to others.

If they fail to stand up to any one particular scrutiny unless it is based on incredibly narrow criteria, then it it generally reasonable to assume that they fail.

Quote:

In fact, I don't think it is possible for you to accept the possibility of a flaw in your reasoning, hence you have to dismiss any and all reasoning or evidence to the contrary.

In which case you think very, very *wrong*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.

Indeed. Your belief in your own infallibility is only second to your arrogance.

And now we're back to personal insults instead of reasoned debate...

dilli-theclaw · 11-03-2005, 16:44

I see we are heading down the road of insults again. Can we please calm it down.

11-03-2005, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

<SNIP>
And now we're back to personal insults instead of reasoned debate...

Plenty of reasoned debate, if you want it.

For example, all of these are things you have said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

[Edit of comments which contribute nothing to the discussion]
...
By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.
...
By actually using our *own* brains for once.
...
There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story.
...
If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

To me these things sound arrogant, particularly:

Quote:

...so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

Whose scrutiny? Yours? Is that the benchmark? Maybe for you it is, and that's arrogant.

And since you persistently rubbish any reasoning from anyone else, you must believe that only you are right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.

And with that one sentence you dismiss everything I say as 'rubbish'.

You persist in claiming you're right:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.

Hence my comment on your belief in your own infallibility.

So it is my opinion which I expressed in that statement that you call a 'personal insult', an opinion formed following the reasoning given above.

dilli-theclaw · 11-03-2005, 17:09

Can we PLEASE return to the subject of the thread

TheBlueRaja · 11-03-2005, 17:10

People, we have started to get complaints about this topic and its content, please calm it down or the thread will be closed.

Have a nice day!

11-03-2005, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

[snip]

ScaredWebWarrior there was nothing in your post that was relevant to the discussion.

I see no point in continuing this further.

Florence · 11-03-2005, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

ScaredWebWarrior there was nothing in your post that was relevant to the discussion.

I see no point in continuing this further.

We have asked for you to keep this ontopic please try.

11-03-2005, 19:52

The last of the Belmarsh detainees have been released on bail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4338849.stm

The article mentions a list of restrictions placed on these people.
What I can't understand is that one of the detainees is described as "a truly dangerous individual" - so why is he being let out?
It seems hard to believe that this person can be judged to be so dangerous without any evidence of criminality or criminal intent, so why can we not prosecute, or deport?

Meanwhile, the curb on our civil liberties as being pushed through parliament has it's list of restrictions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4288407.stm#list

Since it's beginning to look like these measures will become law, at least for the time being, maybe we'd all better get used to the idea.

The higher standard of proof demanded doesn't seem to make any real difference either.

Of course, if we didn't have any of this, those detainees released would be free to do whatever they chose.

So if we were not to have any of these restrictions, how would we deal with the threat these people appear to pose?

11-03-2005, 20:35

According to the BBC the House of Lords have now passed the bill...

Xaccers · 12-03-2005, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.

My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.

You won't answer my question because it helps point out the flaw in your argument doesn't it?

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are most likely to be Asian.
Now, that is not the same as saying "All Asians are islamic fundametalist terrorists" but then, no one believes that.
Now, being a muslim, you're more likely to come into contact with terrorist suspects than say a middle class white person, through no fault of your own.
For instance, you may unwittingly share a mosque with a terrorist suspect, and socialise with them.
As such, it is understandable that the security forces would be interested in you and may even bring you in for questioning.
That is why it was stated that muslims are more likely to be affected by the anti-terrorism proceedures.
It is not the case that a muslim going about his business with no links at all to terroism, is going to be dragged off for interrogation just in case they're a terrorist.

12-03-2005, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.

My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.

You won't answer my question because it helps point out the flaw in your argument doesn't it?

No, it is because a ridiculous question.

Quote:

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are most likely to be Asian.
Now, that is not the same as saying "All Asians are islamic fundametalist terrorists" but then, no one believes that.

Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:

Quote:

Now, being a muslim, you're more likely to come into contact with terrorist suspects than say a middle class white person, through no fault of your own.
For instance, you may unwittingly share a mosque with a terrorist suspect, and socialise with them.
As such, it is understandable that the security forces would be interested in you and may even bring you in for questioning.[...]

It is not the case that a muslim going about his business with no links at all to terroism, is going to be dragged off for interrogation just in case they're a terrorist.

The only "link" you have is entirely specious.

This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".

You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!

Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!

Xaccers · 12-03-2005, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

No, it is because a ridiculous question.

It is an extremely valid question, one you felt you could not answer because it exposed the flaws in your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:

The only "link" you have is entirely specious.

This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".

You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!

Perhaps you neglected to read what I actually stated Graham?
What did I state which relates to presumption of innocence when dealing with a suspect? Suspect being the operative word graham, it means that someone is suspected of criminal activity but has not be charged, or found guilty, they are still innocent!

Perhaps you believe that if someone is murdered in a nightclub the police should let everyone there go and not take them in for questioning, after all, most of them would have had nothing to do with the murder.

Or perhaps you have no idea how the law has been working for the past 50+ years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!

Intelligence? reasoned response? understanding of quoted text? Not in Graham's posts apparently!!!

12-03-2005, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Answer me this simple question:

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

At last....found the question!

OK how about answering your question with a question

If you are a police officer within a force which confesses itself to be instutionally racist (as GMP here have) are you more likely to stop and search:

1. A white person?
2. A black/Asian person?

The issue with stop and search is that it is a power that has in the past been abused and demonstrated to be counter-productive to effective policing. We are all, I'm sure, concerned with reducing and containing the threat of terrorism (although we may disagree on what the level of threat is) and my point is simply that S&S is unlikely to be in any way effective in doing so.