In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring.

Your source that that bold statement is . . . . . ?

Terrorism continues. QED

Terrorism may well continue but is the level of terrorism the same or less than might otherwise be the case. A question that neither of us has the knowledge or information to answer honestly and openly.

I see you agree that monitoring does not stop terrorism.

Nice attempt at moving the goalposts btw

It doesn't stop ALL terrorism. It most likely does stop some terrorism. Therefore "monitoring stops terrorism" is an accurate phrase - "monitoring does not stop terrorism" is not accurate.

Speeding continues but a static camera slows down traffic for a while.

Semantics and statistics can be used to deflect the argument.

In reply to a post by ian72:

It doesn't stop ALL terrorism. It most likely does stop some terrorism. Therefore "monitoring stops terrorism" is an accurate phrase

No it isn't - unless you have proof?

"monitoring does not stop terrorism" is not accurate

Yes it is, as I said earlier - monitoring happens, terrorism continues.

Edited by deleted (Tue 21-Nov-17 13:18:25)

You think terrorism is like speeding?

I know some people who got shot on a beach in Tunisia who might disagree with you.

You have proof that some terrorism continues. None of us have proof that no terrorism is stopped by monitoring - my suspicion is that there would be more terrorism if there wasn't a level of monitoring, your position is there wouldn't. Without direct access into the security services we aren't likely to get an answer.

Oh look, usual disclaimer applies

In reply to a post by MCM:

A question that neither of us has the knowledge or information to answer honestly and openly.