PBS - BBC Newsnight reports 23,000 jihadists living in UK - ‘possible tip of the iceberg’

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7014
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
02 July 2017 10:40
 

Last night I saw on PBS - BBC Newsnight that UK’s MI5 reports 23,000 jihadists are living in UK.  3,000 considered serious threats.  https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/06/28/former-uk-intel-official-says-23000-jihadists-admitted-by-mi5-is-probably-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/

quote:  “But Kemp’s stunning admission that these figures on the number of jihadists may be vastly understated lends evidence to the claim that the extent of the threat in the UK may exceed authorities’ ability to deal with it.

The pace of terror attacks in the UK this year has been staggering.”

Can UK jihadists travel to U.S. as tourists, business people, students, religious teachers etc.?  Anything on their passport/visa to inform U.S. security?

question:  What happens when the number of jihadists ‘exceed authorities ability to deal with it?’

[ Edited: 02 July 2017 10:58 by unsmoked]
 
 
EUCA
 
Avatar
 
 
EUCA
Total Posts:  2
Joined  14-02-2017
 
 
 
02 July 2017 13:29
 

> question:  What happens when the number of jihadists ‘exceed authorities ability to deal with it?’

The authorities will remove all internet encryption.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1056
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 July 2017 15:26
 

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 July 2017 21:21
 
Jan_CAN - 02 July 2017 03:26 PM

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2249
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
03 July 2017 23:32
 
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

Answer: 100%

The law doesn’t do Guilt by Assoziation. We always have to look at the individuals if we want to maintain the rule of law.

 

 

[ Edited: 03 July 2017 23:35 by Twissel]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2017 07:26
 
Twissel - 03 July 2017 11:32 PM
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

Answer: 100%

The law doesn’t do Guilt by Assoziation. We always have to look at the individuals if we want to maintain the rule of law.

 

missing the point.

We see gang bangers as a problem. We see cancer as a problem. We see tornados as a problem. We see Nazis as a problem.

This doesn’t mean we suspend the rule of law.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5299
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 July 2017 07:57
 

If the group is misidentified, the results can be tragic.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2017 08:09
 
Nhoj Morley - 04 July 2017 07:57 AM

If the group is misidentified, the results can be tragic.

Example(s) please?

(Happy 4th Nhoj!)

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5299
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 July 2017 08:51
 

Hi. Have we met? I do go on about grouping by brain mechanics rather than ideology. The books just come in handy for making a stunted perception managible.

Enjoy your 4th too, Mr. Horse. Now everyone can even more by converting to more efficeint and re-usable LED fireworks. Ask your local vendor. Check em out! 

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1056
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 July 2017 09:33
 
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 July 2017 03:26 PM

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

The problem/issue is in how and if one can ‘group’ people.

Individual people should not be judged by the actions of other individual people.  People can be judged for any radical political views that they hold and for the history of their own actions and associations.

For example, to deny entry to Syrians seeking safety and opportunity for their family simply because they practise a particular religion would be unfair and lack compassion.

As the American Statue of Liberty ‘says’:  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”  How beautiful is that.

Happy July 4th!

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2017 09:45
 
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 09:33 AM
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 July 2017 03:26 PM

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

The problem/issue is in how and if one can ‘group’ people.

Individual people should not be judged by the actions of other individual people.  People can be judged for any radical political views that they hold and for the history of their own actions and associations.

For example, to deny entry to Syrians seeking safety and opportunity for their family simply because they practise a particular religion would be unfair and lack compassion.

As the American Statue of Liberty ‘says’:  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”  How beautiful is that.

Happy July 4th!

- First and foremost, if we want to REALLY help the people of the world, we must remain a strong and viable country. Good so far?
- Second, immigration can help only a tiny, tiny fraction of the world’s desperately poor people.

So what we SHOULD be doing, if we really care and are really honest, is keep ourselves strong and improve the kinds of aid and amounts of aid we give around the world. We have had immigration policies for decades. Why should we change them now? Why are the Syrians more refugee-worthy than (for example), the Sudanese?

TED: immigration

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1056
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 July 2017 10:26
 
icehorse - 04 July 2017 09:45 AM
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 09:33 AM
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 July 2017 03:26 PM

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

The problem/issue is in how and if one can ‘group’ people.

Individual people should not be judged by the actions of other individual people.  People can be judged for any radical political views that they hold and for the history of their own actions and associations.

For example, to deny entry to Syrians seeking safety and opportunity for their family simply because they practise a particular religion would be unfair and lack compassion.

As the American Statue of Liberty ‘says’:  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”  How beautiful is that.

Happy July 4th!

- First and foremost, if we want to REALLY help the people of the world, we must remain a strong and viable country. Good so far?
- Second, immigration can help only a tiny, tiny fraction of the world’s desperately poor people.

So what we SHOULD be doing, if we really care and are really honest, is keep ourselves strong and improve the kinds of aid and amounts of aid we give around the world. We have had immigration policies for decades. Why should we change them now? Why are the Syrians more refugee-worthy than (for example), the Sudanese?

We’re not just talking about poor people; we are also talking about people whose very safety is at stake.  Even if one can help only a fraction of those in need, that can be thousands of people—individual people—people with families, LGBT people at risk, people with something to contribute, people who will love and be grateful to their new country.

Yes, the U.S. has had immigration policies for decades, but these are changing.

Of course there will always be a need for immigration quotas, and how these are arrived at will change constantly depending on need, international politics, and a country’s ability to initially support a particular number of immigrants/refugees.  It is important that these decisions are made rationally, fairly and compassionately.  We must resist fear and prejudice from affecting these decisions.  As I said earlier, this is the difficult challenge we are currently facing.  We can’t just close and lock the gate.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2017 11:04
 
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 10:26 AM
icehorse - 04 July 2017 09:45 AM
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 09:33 AM
icehorse - 03 July 2017 09:21 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 July 2017 03:26 PM

We must be careful how we react to this type of news.  It is alarming and one can’t help but be frightened (I certainly am).  We must try to protect ourselves.  We must be vigilant and hope that security agencies can monitor threats and have some ability to protect us.  We must support these agencies as best we can; if they need more resources, they should have them.

People are not always their best when frightened.  We can lose our reason and see all members of a group(s) as a threat; we can lose our sense of fairness and compassion in the process.  That is the difficult challenge we are facing – to protect our safety and way of life without losing our humanity.

This is a sincere question: What percentage of a group have to be a problem before it’s reasonable to see the entire group as a problem?

The problem/issue is in how and if one can ‘group’ people.

Individual people should not be judged by the actions of other individual people.  People can be judged for any radical political views that they hold and for the history of their own actions and associations.

For example, to deny entry to Syrians seeking safety and opportunity for their family simply because they practise a particular religion would be unfair and lack compassion.

As the American Statue of Liberty ‘says’:  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”  How beautiful is that.

Happy July 4th!

- First and foremost, if we want to REALLY help the people of the world, we must remain a strong and viable country. Good so far?
- Second, immigration can help only a tiny, tiny fraction of the world’s desperately poor people.

So what we SHOULD be doing, if we really care and are really honest, is keep ourselves strong and improve the kinds of aid and amounts of aid we give around the world. We have had immigration policies for decades. Why should we change them now? Why are the Syrians more refugee-worthy than (for example), the Sudanese?

We’re not just talking about poor people; we are also talking about people whose very safety is at stake.  Even if one can help only a fraction of those in need, that can be thousands of people—individual people—people with families, LGBT people at risk, people with something to contribute, people who will love and be grateful to their new country.

Yes, the U.S. has had immigration policies for decades, but these are changing.

Of course there will always be a need for immigration quotas, and how these are arrived at will change constantly depending on need, international politics, and a country’s ability to initially support a particular number of immigrants/refugees.  It is important that these decisions are made rationally, fairly and compassionately.  We must resist fear and prejudice from affecting these decisions.  As I said earlier, this is the difficult challenge we are currently facing.  We can’t just close and lock the gate.

I’d say that there are millions of poor people who are more at risk than Syrians.

Did you watch the video - the first world cannot hope to scratch the surface of the world’s poverty issues via immigration.

No one (that I’ve seen on this forum), is suggesting “closing and locking the gate”. We have a triage situation here, and while it’s enormously sad, if we’re really gonna have compassion, we have to zoom out. It’s fairly well established that people are biased to being more compassionate for an individual than for a large group. But if we step back and take a breath, we have to conclude that we should act in ways that help millions, not a few thousand.

And Jan-can I’ll ask again, why should we be more concerned for the Syrians than we are for the Sudanese?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1056
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 July 2017 11:30
 
icehorse - 04 July 2017 11:04 AM

I’d say that there are millions of poor people who are more at risk than Syrians.

Did you watch the video - the first world cannot hope to scratch the surface of the world’s poverty issues via immigration.

No one (that I’ve seen on this forum), is suggesting “closing and locking the gate”. We have a triage situation here, and while it’s enormously sad, if we’re really gonna have compassion, we have to zoom out. It’s fairly well established that people are biased to being more compassionate for an individual than for a large group. But if we step back and take a breath, we have to conclude that we should act in ways that help millions, not a few thousand.

And Jan-can I’ll ask again, why should we be more concerned for the Syrians than we are for the Sudanese?

Previously I used Syrians as an example; I did not say that we should be more concerned for Syrians than for the Sudanese.

I didn’t much like the video – don’t like people compared to gumballs.  Yes, providing economic aid to countries, especially when the issue is famine and poverty, is very important.  However, this does not solve the problem for those in areas of conflict and war.  Just because all people cannot be helped or saved is no justification for helping no one.  People are not just statistics, or gumballs.  I disagree that we have to “zoom out” to have compassion; I think the complete opposite is true – IMO we need to zoom in.

Also, I never suggested that there should be ‘mass’ immigration (as per the video) – just that decisions should be rational and compassionate.  I do think we in North America could do better.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5489
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2017 11:36
 
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 11:30 AM
icehorse - 04 July 2017 11:04 AM

I’d say that there are millions of poor people who are more at risk than Syrians.

Did you watch the video - the first world cannot hope to scratch the surface of the world’s poverty issues via immigration.

No one (that I’ve seen on this forum), is suggesting “closing and locking the gate”. We have a triage situation here, and while it’s enormously sad, if we’re really gonna have compassion, we have to zoom out. It’s fairly well established that people are biased to being more compassionate for an individual than for a large group. But if we step back and take a breath, we have to conclude that we should act in ways that help millions, not a few thousand.

And Jan-can I’ll ask again, why should we be more concerned for the Syrians than we are for the Sudanese?

Previously I used Syrians as an example; I did not say that we should be more concerned for Syrians than for the Sudanese.

I didn’t much like the video – don’t like people compared to gumballs.  Yes, providing economic aid to countries, especially when the issue is famine and poverty, is very important.  However, this does not solve the problem for those in areas of conflict and war.  Just because all people cannot be helped or saved is no justification for helping no one.  People are not just statistics, or gumballs.  I disagree that we have to “zoom out” to have compassion; I think the complete opposite is true – IMO we need to zoom in.

Also, I never suggested that there should be ‘mass’ immigration (as per the video) – just that decisions should be rational and compassionate.  I do think we in North America could do better.

I can’t tell how precisely you want to discuss this issue. I suspect I’m pressing you too hard for details, but I don’t want to guess. Are you interested in digging into this more deeply?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1056
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 July 2017 11:58
 
icehorse - 04 July 2017 11:36 AM
Jan_CAN - 04 July 2017 11:30 AM
icehorse - 04 July 2017 11:04 AM

I’d say that there are millions of poor people who are more at risk than Syrians.

Did you watch the video - the first world cannot hope to scratch the surface of the world’s poverty issues via immigration.

No one (that I’ve seen on this forum), is suggesting “closing and locking the gate”. We have a triage situation here, and while it’s enormously sad, if we’re really gonna have compassion, we have to zoom out. It’s fairly well established that people are biased to being more compassionate for an individual than for a large group. But if we step back and take a breath, we have to conclude that we should act in ways that help millions, not a few thousand.

And Jan-can I’ll ask again, why should we be more concerned for the Syrians than we are for the Sudanese?

Previously I used Syrians as an example; I did not say that we should be more concerned for Syrians than for the Sudanese.

I didn’t much like the video – don’t like people compared to gumballs.  Yes, providing economic aid to countries, especially when the issue is famine and poverty, is very important.  However, this does not solve the problem for those in areas of conflict and war.  Just because all people cannot be helped or saved is no justification for helping no one.  People are not just statistics, or gumballs.  I disagree that we have to “zoom out” to have compassion; I think the complete opposite is true – IMO we need to zoom in.

Also, I never suggested that there should be ‘mass’ immigration (as per the video) – just that decisions should be rational and compassionate.  I do think we in North America could do better.

I can’t tell how precisely you want to discuss this issue. I suspect I’m pressing you too hard for details, but I don’t want to guess. Are you interested in digging into this more deeply?

Thanks for asking, icehorse.  I think I’ve made the points that I wanted to and don’t really have anything further I can add or offer.  –Jan