would you like it if your own friends and family were being spied on secretly because some people thought they were affiliated with groups with "dented reputations"?

Not just my friends or family but I myself, ... I really would love it because it would mean the police are vigilant and doing their job. Eventually all innocents would be found clean and left alone. Thats better than whats happening now. Police in many western countries do prevent a lot of attacks but are also reactionary to many others. And this is when it hurts

Terrorists have to succeed once to make the headlines, the police have to get it right all the time to save lives. Under that kind of pressure I don't mind being spied upon. It would be naive to get twitchy about your freedom and being spied upon and then mourn later when ISIS succeed

Do you know that some of those who carried out the recent attacks in the UK were reported to the police for their extreme radical actions. But something held the police back. That something hangs between protecting people's freedom, political correctness and lack of funding because there are now fewer police around than there used to be to monitor and keep track of extremists properly, so they are now cutting corners

Right, so, assuming that you and your family didn't do anything to deserve your dented reputation, wouldn't you rather law enforcement spend their limited resources elsewhere? Singling out all mosques isn't merely unfair; there's also seemingly no reason to believe that "slip[ping] more secret service agents into their communities" will in any way help to combat terrorism. Doesn't the fact that the attacker was already "reported to the police" just provide yet another data point that the police are perfectly able to identify attackers without needing the kind of profiling and intrigue you're proposing?

Like I said before, it's one thing if you're willing to discriminate against Muslims to make society "safer" or whatever, which I admit is not something I'm really into on principle. But unless there's real, solid evidence that your proposals will actually make people safer by actually helping to stop terrorists, that trade-off doesn't even seem compelling on its own terms.

if you say this, you're a Nazi

So you'd rather die a dog's death than be called a naughty name?

Well, you're an evil, horrible nazi and nobody loves you.

There. Now you have nothing left to lose, so you may as well do something to make the world a little bit better instead of sitting there simpering just in case people who you know have an outright evil agenda might call you a mean name.

Jesus, watching society paralyzed by this shit is like watching Superman break down and cry because a bank robber called him a doo-doo head.

Or, and I know this is just fucking insane, we could talk to them?

I mean, it's not liked it worked in Northern Ireland, right?

I get it, these attacks are awful and those responsible are barbaric assholes. So were the IRA. If we had modern media in the 1700s, so was George Washington.

I know I'm just being a wussy liberal, but isn't it just possible that the reason ISIS, Al-queada, etc exist is because they started with a legitimate grievance? Yeah, there's a bunch of religious nut-jobbery, but religious nut-jobbery doesn't work on happy, well adjusted people (and no, just because your situation is fine doesn't mean you don't identify with other people).

Nah, to hell with it, let's keep tightening security and bombing brown people! While we're at it, let's demonise whole ethnic groups and nationalities. That's worked out great so far. There's no possible way that could play into the hands of those manipulating people into doing these things!

Oh, and the mayor of London didn't say that terror attacks were a fact of modern life, he said security against them was.

Anyway, we've had 16 years of THIS war on terror, maybe in another few decades, we might figure out the need to sit down and talk.

The primary victims of ISIS' violence are Shiite Muslims. They've been talking/living together for thousands of years.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity/race, as White/Black Sunni Muslims pull the same crap.

There's actually an entire division of Asian Muslims in ISIS as well, if you google some of their propaganda they have a whole segment on them (I think just google "The flames of war + isis" and click the liveleak link)

Immigrants should go through more rigorous "western values/culture" assessment test before granted leave to stay

1. This is contrary to Western values.

Well not exactly. The problem with is that some immigrants do not have respect for the culture of the county they are in, and possibly show some destructive behavior(destroying some public stuff like nature, benches and monuments, not tolerating the culture of the *native people). Not all of them are like that of course so somehow a line must be drawn, but after all they are people and need help

(EDIT: we should just balance between helping them and protecting our culture).

This is contrary to Western values.

But those "western values" are a lie, like pretty much all socialist propaganda, spread by the would-be intellectual proletariate.

Take my country (Germany) for example, which is full with these "values" and where people miss no opportuntiy pointing out what rights anyone who illegally crosses the border has. Or, what rights they think he has.

First of all, the Grundgesetz explicitly says that politically pursued people have the right of asylum. Which, in the strictest sense, means that actually anyone fleeing from "war" has no rights at all, except if they can demonstrate that they, specifically, will be pursued and harmed, for political reasons (not because there's war, and definitively not because the wages in Germany are higher and the weather is nicer). No, please don't start a discussion on the ethics of denying someone who is truthfully fleeing from war (most aren't anyway). This is not what I'm suggesting, nor what this is about. I'm all for helping people who are running for their lives. But I'm saying what's the law. That same law which is quoted wrong so often.

It also means, obviously, that you have zero rights otherwise. If you cross the border illegally otherwise, you're a criminal, none more and none less. And to be honest, if a group of several hundred foreigners who carry weapons (yes, knives and clubs are weapons) forcefully crosses the border, e.g. by tearing down a fence (happens about twice per week in one or the other place within the EU), then that's not just criminal, but an act of war. You might remember, we did just the same back when we started World War II. Went to Poland, and killed some people, then said it was their fault. But hey, maybe we should be more forgiving. Hitler probably acted in good faith!

Further, that same law explicitly says that if either you are from a safe country, or if there is good reason to believe that you have no valid justification in the previously mentioned sense (politically pursued) then you are to be expelled, and there be no delay in enforcing the expel. A delay of legal enforcement is only acceptable if there is serious doubt that the expel is legitimate (which, by definition, is not the case).

Excuse me? We have a couple of hundred thousand people from safe countries and from not-so-pretty but still... acceptably safe countries ("Come, spend your holiday in Tunisia" -- I wonder if it's safe for me to go there, why is it not safe for Tunisians?), and they stay for years. But not only do they stay (I wouldn't mind, any foreigner who gets a job and pays taxes and doesn't kill people is most welcome!) and not only are a lot of them criminals, they get luxury apartments and loads of money... more than my mother who worked her entire life gets for retirement. At the same time, the socialists complain there's too few affordable apartments for our citizens. Go figure.

When it's decided someone has to leave, they get paid to leave to encourate them doing it on their own. Excuse me? Are you fucking kidding me? Since when does it need encouragement to comply if you are in violation of the law?

But it gets worse. When someone like that Afghan in Nürnberg last week who said he was going to kill people is to be arrested and expelled -- after having evaded the expel for 3 years, then there's a fucking crowd of 500 ultra-left vermin throwing rocks at police and defending him, and guess what, now he is staying.

Western values says you. Constitutional state says me. Which means none more and none less than there's a law and a legal process of sorts, and the law is binding. If, according to the legal process, it's decided "You leave", then you fucking leave, no matter whether or not your stone-throwing friends start a riot.

This is not the only incident of that kind. I remember a similar case about a year ago when a young Turkish woman was to leave. I wouldn't have minded if she stayed, she seemed OK and was studying and earning her life. But that's not the point. The officials reviewing her application unambiguously decided against her. If, at any time,. an official decides against me, guess what, then that's just "bad luck" for me. Because, you know, that's the law, and the law is binding for everybody.

So... in steps the fucking Church (Separation of state and church, anyone?). They call it injust and grant her asylum, which is totally illegal but they do it anyway, and nobody says a word. Three weeks later, the woman is handed a German passport. Again, I have nothing against that particular woman, but I am decidedly against the way the law is being rendered a joke in the most absurd way. If the law is binding for me, then it had better be fucking binding for everyone else, too. Including a foreigner.

I am in no way saying "foreigners out" (and never did). But I'm strongly for giving anyone who doesn't behave a kick in the butt. I'm all for giving criminal citizens that same kick in the butt as well, but the problem with these is you just can't expel them (this is their home, where would they go). You can, however, do that with criminal foreigners. Only just, we don't, because socialists.

There's literally hundreds of people who are considered a "present and immediate threat", and we're discussing whether it's OK to have them carry an electronic tag. Excuse me? There's two kinds of people in the world: those who have a right to be in a country (that's the citizens and some very few, exceptional people in need of protection), and there's all others. Everybody in the "all others" category is merely tolerated (e.g. by means of a visa). Being tolerated is not a right, it is something the state grants to you in good will, for as long as you behave. That's all.

So... the instant you are in the "present and immediate threat" category, it means "Out! Out! Out!". No lawsuit needed, no burden of proof of an actual crime. Suffices to say the state doesn't want you. Arrest and on the boat the next day.

Try your luck entering the USA with a perfectly valid visa, and calling the immigration officer an idiot. Guess what will happen? You will not enter the USA for at least the next 5 years. The officer stamps "undesired" onto your visa and says "You! Turn around!". That's it. But how can they do that when you have a valid visa? Well... because being allowed to stay in another country is not a right. It's a courtesy. Behave or get a kick in the butt.

Besides, rights always have limits, and rights always have obligations. Freedom of speech? Well you can't say "I have a bomb" or "All infidels must die, I will kill them", regardless of whatever freedom of speech you think you have. Self-fulfilment? Freedom of religion? Well you can't have that if it means harming/killing other people. That should be pretty obvious. Except here, it's not.

You know, we deserve having our throats cut...

It says a lot for recent times that we have people who seriously think that "going right wing" is just about immigration. Hint: it's not. "Going right wing" means that you're also buying into a whole package of other economic and social ideologies, and it would be a shame if they were ideologies you disagreed with but the immigration platform led you to give them a mandate.

Think very carefully before you make this kind of decision.

It says a lot for recent times that we have people who seriously think that "going right wing" is just about immigration. Hint: it's not. "Going right wing" means that you're also buying into a whole package of other economic and social ideologies, and it would be a shame if they were ideologies you disagreed with but the immigration platform led you to give them a mandate.

Think very carefully before you make this kind of decision.

Also, immigration and terrorist attacks are two separate things.

I find it astounding that the people here, all of whom I assume to have some reasonable level of education, can lump together refugees, immigrants, and itinerant workers as if they are a faceless interchangeable "them."

If you're lumping all the Forn together and tarring them as the troublemakers with one big brush, you're part of the problem.