Forum menu
Can someone edit the thread title and remove the word 'Breaking' now please
Good point.
I heard earlier that the reason why most policemen/women don't want to carry pistols, is all the stuff they have to go through after any use of the weapon.
Inquiries and the like which they feel the burden of proof is on them to avoid prosecution for doing what they perceive to be their duty in situations where instant decisions have to be made which could so easily be incorrect. They feel they would not get the benefit of the doubt which they feel they deserve.
Charles Menezes, for example...
Not for any distaste about using armament.
It sounds harsh, but at some point you have to file things under "s**t happens" and hope it never happens to you.....
Exactly my thoughts. You could put walls along a pavements, you could spend billions monitoring anyone who had a remote chance of doing anything bad (remember many people are murdered in the UK each week so would need to be monitoring for those too) or you could just accept that there is not much you can realistically do.
Also, don't give it 3 days of constant news coverage.
Cougar - Moderator
Can someone edit the thread title and remove the word 'Breaking' now please
Good point.
Has there been a bomb in Regent Street? 😉
They feel they would not get the benefit of the doubt which they feel they deserve.
Charles Menezes, for example...
Hmmm. Not perhaps the perfect example of when benefit of doubt should be applied.
Or a taser, or pepper spray.
Or a **** off big shouty dog armed with a laser!
A LASER!!
This is possibly a stupid question, but it just occurred to me, so excuse me if it's stupid. What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government? I know he was a Muslim, but I'm not aware of any note and I haven't heard anything about him shouting anything that would mark this out as terrorist attack. Sure, IS have claimed responsibility, but they would.
This was sparked by just hearing on the news that although he had converted to Islam, there was no awareness he had been radicalised.
Not trolling or trying to be smart, genuinely wondering if I have missed something in the reporting that is indicative of a specific terrorist claim on his part
Charles Menezes, for example...
that was a combination of piss poor intelligence and surveillance and over-zealous policing in the heat of action
the police have said that the attacker was known to them so it strikes me as odd that it took so long to formally identify him.
but again they initially got that wrong so that explains the delay...was this guy a lone wolf operating under the inspired influence or was he part of something bigger?
we dont even know what his motives for the attacks were...for that reason it might have been better if he could have been taken alive.
This is possibly a stupid question, but it just occurred to me, so excuse me if it's stupid. What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government?
He was a scrote, a petty criminal and had a history of violence.
Even if this does turn out to be a 'legitimate' terrorist attack (however you want to define that) I take the view that dying in an orgy of violence because he got a kick out of violence is the real motivation. Perhaps he didn't admit that to himself. Probably steroid abuse contributed as well. ...and yeah having little to lose and a grudge against society will be there in the mix too.
If he'd been a decent person he'd have done something decent in the name of Islam. Because he was a scrote he did something scrote-like for the sake of Islam. I'm not sure Islam gets the credit in the first case, or the blame in the second case.
He's probably mentally ill.
What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government?
He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.
He's probably mentally ill.
No shit Sherlock.
I take the view that dying in an orgy of violence because he got a kick out of violence is the real motivation.
You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
No shit Sherlock.
Well if that was an initial thought to people, this thread would barely exist.
"He's probably mentally ill."
Or at least mildly eccentric. 🙂
[quote=gobuchul ]He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.
The BBC (at least) isn't going quite as far as that
However, Mrs May added that "some years ago" he was "once investigated in relation to concerns about violent extremism".
scotroutes
gobuchul » He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.The BBC (at least) isn't going quite as far as that
Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.
gobuchul » He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.
Had he?
Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.
Or.
Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses.
"You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better."
What's the alternative? God didn't make him violent, he was violent long before he found God.
"Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses."
This.
What's the alternative? God didn't make him violent, he was violent long before he found God.
He had a violent past but nothing like this. He hadn't been arrested for any violence for a number of years.
There is a big difference between slashing someone with a Stanley knife and chopping their head off with a machete.
not trying to avoid a probable elephant in the room but playing devil's advocate.
In a seven degrees of Kevin Bacon style way, i played cricket with a lot of British asians a few years back. They would have had a circle of friends, who had a circle of friends, we'd have had our numbers on people's phone lists...... I bet a number of us have possibly shown up on 'investigation' lists even if just for a junior spy at MI5 to immediately discard us again as not of interest.
We tread a fine line between trust nobody and civil liberty above all. Just because he was once looked at means nothing without knowing why and how hard.
**
Devil's advocate off - the police and sec services will be looking at it. Guessing at motive despite an obvious apparent elephant is of no great use. If they have info that operationally they don't want to reveal just yet then I'm fine with that. I'd also note that the police thanked the media for not revealing the attackers name(s) despite having them quite quickly to allow the police time to act upon the info first.
Well said.
"There is a big difference between slashing someone with a Stanley knife and chopping their head off with a machete."
Well that's where we disagree. I think someone who carried a knife in a pub and used it on someone's face is *exactly* the kind of person who could end up killing people.
Drac
Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.Or.
Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses.
Silly me jumping to conclusions. I forgot to consider EVERY possible reason other than "Islamist group" when someone runs over tourists then hacks a police officer to death.
The eight arrests at six addresses are probably just a happy accident because he has a considerable property portfolio.
The right wing press were pretty quick to use a picture of a woman of Muslim appearance walking past a body looking completely indifferent though, and when more pictures were released it was apparent that it was a 'lucky snap' and that she was quite clearly upset.
Anyone who's ever used a camera knows if you take a rapid fire shot at a moving scene, you'll only get one or two good pictures, and one or two really bad looking ones as well.
The press chose to publish one that suited an agenda.
"Silly me jumping to conclusions. I forgot to consider EVERY possible reason other than "Islamist group" when someone runs over tourists then hacks a police officer to death."
I think there's no doubt this * was an Islamist.
I just think 'Islamist' is never the whole story. Unless you can offer am example of a totally peaceful person who hates violence and then feels forced to kill by God. Because IME these *s always have a history of crime/violence/drugs and I don't think that's coincidence.
"when more pictures were released it was apparent that it was a 'lucky snap' and that she was quite clearly upset."
Yup. Camera never lies. Bollocks, it always lies, it's a split second and the way the press use that is obscene.
He's probably mentally ill.Some might be but most jihadist/terrorist's won't be ill in the medical sense. In all probability he'd have know exactly what he was doing, and had an absolute certainty that what he was doing was right.
"Some might be but most jihadist/terrorist's won't be ill in the medical sense. In all probability he'd have know exactly what he was doing, and had an absolute certainty that what he was doing was right."
I assume you're guessing, rather than referencing some study?
If so my guess is that every single suicidal terrorist in a Liberal Democracy has a personality disorder of some kind.
Obviously not Psychosis, but something most of us would regard as 'being a nutter'.
I think crazy people are susceptible to religion rather than the other way around, religion is a symptom of mental illness.
Of course most religious people don't go that far, but they are all wrong in the head in varying degrees.
Then then thier religious beliefs are used as an excuse.
........religion is a symptom of mental illness.Of course most religious people don't go that far, but they are all wrong in the head in varying degrees.
The overwhelming majority of people in the world have religious beliefs. I would question the sanity of someone who thinks most people are mentally ill.
wong in the head
Lold
Thing is, i could drive my car through a busy supermarket car park and kill tens of people. No knife, no gun, no nothing needed. I think trying to defend against that sort of threat is in reality, not just impossible, but pointless.
In the slightly longer term, one possible solution is driverless cars.
In the first place it would be harder to mount an attack if all vehicles were computer controlled. Hacking vehicles to use them in an attack would require skills and resources that wouldn't be readily available to a lone wolf.
A terrorist could still resurrect an old manual car for an attack, but in that situation, other autonomous vehicles could spot erratic driving and respond far quicker than humans could. In a situation like the Westminster attack you could have every other car in the immediate vicinity flashing their lights, blowing their horns and alerting the nearest police and emergency services almost immediately. In some situations it might even be possible to neutralise the threat without endangering other road users by coralling the car with other vehicles.
We're not a million miles away from being able to do this.
"The overwhelming majority of people in the world have religious beliefs."
Not in the Church of England we don't! The religion for people who don't really beleive in anything much. I'd recommend it.
The bigot is currently filling his boots with his 70 virgins.
Not if Games Workshop won't let him in!
Tom_W1987 - Member
wong in the head
Lold
Racist.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
In the slightly longer term, one possible solution is driverless cars
Yes, like sticking your thumb in a leaky damn.
I was discussing today whether Volvos already have not hitting people sensors built in. Apparently they do.
So the driverless idea isn't that daft - just a few years off.
More likely is that cars get banned from cities - certainly cities like London with decent public transport networks - and rucks are only allowed in in the wee small hours. That separates the pedestrians from the likely weapon vehicles.
"I was discussing today whether Volvos already have not hitting people sensors built in. Apparently they do."
A fair few cars do. I wonder if he researched that?
If it takes 15 years to have fully autonomous vehicles there'll still be manual vehicles up to that point, and then they'll be around for 15 to 20 years after that.
What's more they'll be reliant on GPS so there would need to be some kind of manual control in the event of a failure with the gps - MS DOS for lorries. If you had something as big as an articulated lorry break down due to software it could be pretty problematic.
Also you'd have vehicles like tractors and diggers which will need manual control. So I wouldn't hold my breath for self driving cars to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism.
What's more they'll be reliant on GPS so there would need to be some kind of manual control in the event of a failure with the gps - MS DOS for lorries. If you had something as big as an articulated lorry break down due to software it could be pretty problematic.
I don't think they will need GPS, give it a decade and they will be doing it with internal guidance systems and AI. The defence industry will see to that when they decide they need cruise missiles with pinpoint accuracy and less reliance on vulnerable satellites.
Having a steering column defeats the point, increases cost and decreases safety in the event of a crash.
I take exception to suggestions that people must be "mentally ill" to commit hideous violent crimes. Mentally ill people are more likely to be a danger to themselves than to other people.
Unless you include psychopaths as mentally ill.
+1 Vicky, although sociopathy is a mental illness as well. Unfortunately a small subset of disorders will possibly predispose individuals to violence.
I do get ****ed off with the fact that is is apparently okay to blame the broad brush of mental illness - but not okay to blame a crazy book.
"I take exception to suggestions that people must be "mentally ill" to commit hideous violent crimes."
Hmmm, these guys always seem to me to fit the pattern for antisocial personality disorders.
And I really don't think you can argue people with Antisocial Personality Disorders are unlikely to commit violent offences against others.
Their problems are clearly mental but maybe not from a mental illness (i.e you become mentally ill rather than have a personality disorder from birth).
Agree it would be more along the lines of personality disorders in a lot of cases but there are also many cases where a mental illness has lead to murder.
vickypeaI take exception to suggestions that people must be "mentally ill" to commit hideous violent crimes.
It seems to be very difficult, nay impossible for a lot of western secular minds to comprehend the idea that Islamic terrorists might be motivated by religion.
If you consider that they actually believe what they say they believe then their actions make a lot more sense, but a lot of secular western people struggle to wrap their head around this concept.
We're so removed from religion and religious devotion that the idea of killing or dying in the name of god seems absurd and it requires a critical look at Islam, which of course makes you a racist, xenophobic, brexit voting bigot.