[Closed] Terrorism

small but viscous sect

It really is all about the oil?

I know, given they only had knives I don't know why the police couldn't taser and arrest them, rather than murder them in another illegal extra-judicial killing
You are taking the piss, right.
My sarcasmometer is reading not sure.

I guess ninfan is just sneaking in another slur of Corbyn on the back of this.

I don't do religion as it is at odds with modern thinking,
Womens equality and gay rights.

A non violent bakery owner has scorn poured over him for refusing to bake a Bert and Ernie cake, but if he had chosen to stab to death innocent people out on a Saturday night, some one on here would condem calling him a loser crass. It's a crazy world we live in.

Oh I wonder if it might be to do with the fake bomb vests they were apparently wearing.

Ah, bulky jackets, wires hanging out - we've been here before haven't we?

Frankenstein - Member
What is the motive of the attack?
What do they want?

These (relatively) small-scale attacks may spread terror, but if the overall aim of Daesh / whoever genuinely is the downfall of western values and society it sure isn't going to achieve that with vans and knives...

Still all a bit "I'm not a racist, but...", Deviant.

Problem is, even if you do something like deport the supposed 3000 terrorists living in this country, all you do is generate anger amongst already angry young disillusioned men who just see it as yet another attack on them. So more home grown terrorists pop up.

With terrorism done in the name of Islam the problem is deep rooted in history, and yes we've had a hand in it. Could argue the blame goes back to the Crusades. Though it's excuses to fight. For some reason some parts of the middle east seem to just simmer away with so much anger and not just against the west but against each other.

There are 23000 would be, could be terrorist in this country, we can only monitor 3000 of them.

It's a strange old world when you find yourself thinking "maybe having Saddam and Gaddaffi wasn't that bad after all". 🙁

At least when a country is in the grip of a tyrant who will do anything to preserve his own position 'we' can have some leverage over the situation.

I'm not sure what the solution is, to be honest. Carpet bomb large tracts of the Middle East back to the Stone Age? How would that reduce the likelihood of an attack here? Impose 'our man' in power. Again, not sure how that would help. We can't negotiate with a group whose stated goal is our destruction. Let's say we could 'negotiate'. What would the settlement be? Here's x thousand square miles of the Middle East where international law doesn't function and you can rule it how you like - murder, torture etc?

People are right to distinguish this breed of terrorism from ETA / IRA / UVF etc. For two main reasons. Firstly, whatever you think of them as individuals, they were fighting [u]for[/u] something. The likes of Daesh are only fighting [u]against[/u] what they don't like. Secondly, given the 'cause', the older terrorist groups didn't actively seek death for themselves.

This is what makes this new breed of terrorism so frightening - its utter nihilism.

There are 23000 would be, could be terrorist in this country, we can only monitor 3000 of them.

Were the people involved in the last 3 attacks all within that 23,000 as if there were they we correctly have the potential people marked out. So the answer is to monitor the other 20,000. (or better still also talk to them as I suggested in the previous page)

What do you think we need to be able to more effectively monitor them, the tories seem to be struggling with the concept of additional resources required.

Ah, bulky jackets, wires hanging out - we've been here before haven't we?

So you would rather the police risk their lives and those of others in the vicinity by using a tazer?

How do you know the vests are fake?

Not sure what spin you are putting on this?

Not sure what spin you are putting on this?

The IRAs cause itself was not evil. A republic Ireland in its self is not evil, many countries are republics, USA and France and many people in England would have us a republic. But their means to try and bring this about were evil,

Isis's cause is evil so any comparison between the two does not stand.

So the answer is to monitor the other 20,000

Ok, you monitor them

Then what?

Does 'monitoring them' somehow stop them getting into a van and driving into London? Does it prevent them buying Chapatti flour?

Does 'monitoring them' somehow stop them getting into a van and driving into London?

What do you think we need to be able to more effectively monitor them, the tories seem to be struggling with the concept of additional resources required.

What purpose does bulk monitoring/surveillance by GCHQ and NSA serve in all of this?

It's been going on since before 9/11 in one way or another and still has minimal impact on many aspects of terrorism and organized crime; why?

And why, since they have such extensive powers already, is May calling for internet regulation, but not addressing that her majesty's government actively supports the root cause of the wahhabist extremist ideology?

[img] [/img]

given how ultra-PC the general population, police and politicians have become I think these attacks will become more frequent and that people who don't follow Islam will end up dead or emigrating.

Ah, I see: So it's all our own fault, is it?

The thing that puzzles me about these attacks is why they're automatically labelled 'terrorist'. Many are carried out by lone-wolf nutters who for whatever reasons have worked themselves up into such a state of hatred of the society they live in that they're willing to kill members of that society, and themselves, in order to do something, however futile, about it. There doesn't seem to be any real political motivation, just a hate-fuelled willingness to kill and injure people that they don't like. How are these acts any different to your traditional serial killer or mentally ill nutter who goes on a rampage like happens from time to time? Seems to me that giving them the label 'terrorist' elevates them to a position that not only gives them some sort of warped justification, but might also encourage and inspire others to do the same.

JHJ - worth reading:

The thing that puzzles me about these attacks is why they're automatically labelled 'terrorist'. Many are carried out by lone-wolf nutters who for whatever reasons have worked themselves up into such a state of hatred of the society they live in that they're willing to kill members of that society, and themselves, in order to do something, however futile, about it. There doesn't seem to be any real political motivation, just a hate-fuelled willingness to kill and injure people that they don't like. How are these acts any different to your traditional serial killer or mentally ill nutter who goes on a rampage like happens from time to time? Seems to me that giving them the label 'terrorist' elevates them to a position that not only gives them some sort of warped justification, but might also encourage and inspire others to do the same.

The terrorism label also gives the government a lovely mandate to spend more money on surveillance whilst cutting funding to front-line resources and doing multi-million/billion pound arms deals with the likes of Saudi Arabia. It also helps the PM look "strong and stable".

Do you know where the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, was yesterday?

This is doing the rounds on Facebook,

Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..

Here’s how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
It is a trick.
United States — Muslim 0..6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major
recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

For example, they will push for the introduction of halal food (clean by Islamic standards), thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos)
under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.
In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections. FRANCE

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. Think what is going on in Turkey now, after the so called coupe attempt.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks,
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim.

This whole situation is a gigantic mess. I agree with one of the posts above, what do we do? Flatten the whole of Syria etc or try to develop economic growth in those areas instead?

I'm stuffed if I know. What a mess. It might sound like a strange link but with climate change affectin the Middle East and North Africa means there is something like 100million people that will be displaced into Europe.

Sad times ahead I think

Hmmmnnn.

A quick google suggests Dr Hammond MAY have his own agenda...

chip - Member 
Isis's cause is evil so any comparison between the two does not stand.

Evil to us. To them they believe we are the evil ones. According to their fanatical beliefs we are so immoral and corrupt (potential truth in that) that they have to wipe us from the planet.

Crazy evil murderer is the lone nut job who blows away kids in a school like in the US. Though even then there's a mental health cause behind it.

Daesh prays on vulnerable angry men who are looking for a cause to fight for and sucks them in with propaganda and brainwashes them. Are they then evil, or just brainwashed slaves to their cause?

Still all a bit "I'm not a racist, but...", Deviant

....and I couldn't care less.

I learned a long time ago that some people use accusations of racism, sexism etc to stifle any kind of debate on a difficult topic.

Daesh prays on vulnerable angry men who are looking for a cause to fight for and sucks them in with propaganda and brainwashes them. Are they then evil, or just brainwashed slaves to their cause?

I read some good pieces about prevent, certain areas of Islam with the UK ran what would be considered under normal circumstance an amazing counter PR campaign to discredit it. It worked, absolutely destroyed the good work it does. That's where the government need to wake up, this is a war of words, and we're losing.

Plenty of muslims who work in trying to identify and 'unprogram' radicalised individuals, they need more support and help. They need to be given centre stage to address the nation not politicians and their hollow sound bites. For starters anyway.

Does 'monitoring them' somehow stop them getting into a van and driving into London?

Yep, as you would be monitoring them so would have been aware of their plans. We would also have the resources to talk to them, support people who would help them etc,.

....and I couldn't care less.

Most racists don't. Pity, it does devalue your contribution

I disagree Zokes. it may appear that way to you, your sense of what is and isn't racist is subjective. I'm of Asian heritage, my family hails from ****stan.

The labels need to be removed because we are talking about an ideology. A spade is a spade, you can call it a garden spoon if that fits, but you still dig holes in the garden with it. To ethier tend your petunias or bury bodies.

There needs to be an open and honest dialogue about the perversion of an ideology to push men to commit acts of violence. Chances are things will get heated and close to the bone, that may make people uncomfortable, but I'd prefer you offended than a 10" knife plunged into your chest.

Plenty of muslims who work in trying to identify and 'unprogram' radicalised individuals, they need more support and help. They need to be given centre stage to address the nation

This seems like a good place to start. The media also has a tendency, IMO, to sensationalise these acts. I don't even know if they mean to do it but the news seems to be almost presented as entertainment and that needs to stop. Posting pictures of a dead terrorist putting his ****ing bins out has no place in the story.

Stopping support for the regimes that help to finance the groups behind the acts would also be a good idea. Taking photo opportunities with the Saudi Royals, buying their oil and supplying them with arms would seem to be counter productive to me. I know I'm being naive, but surely cutting off revenue streams has to help.

Edit - Moose is talking a hell of a lot of sense.

we are talking about an ideology.

At least somebody gets it.

As said before, it's not the person I hate, it's the ideology....couldn't care less about skin colour but I care very much indeed when people are plunging knives into women's chests and declaring: "this is for Allah"....that concerns me greatly and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a warped belief system.

that concerns me greatly and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a warped belief system.

People are using religion for their own means and trying to manipulate others. To simplify it to religion is a mistake

So interpretation of a religion to suit ones own needs then?

Yes, they are using religion and doing it against what it really teaches.

There's just been an extremely interesting interview with Nazir Afzal, the former CPS prosecutor. He raised the point that when something like this happens the government and police then engage with the Muslim community through organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain.

He then went on to point out that these 'community leaders' are self-appointed, elderly, very socially conservative and basically totally unrepresentative of a Muslim population which is predominantly young, and female. He pointed out that dealing exclusively with these people, has not, and will not do anything to combat Islamist terrorism. The whole of the community needs to feel involved, and not just a tiny, unrepresentative and largely self-serving minority, who's claim to represent the community is just accepted unquestionably by the authorities

There needs to be an open and honest dialogue about the perversion of an ideology to push men to commit acts of violence

There does, and deviant's post that I pulled him up on did that up until the xenophobic BS in the last couple of paragraphs.

Some muslims are terrorists

Some non-muslims are terrorists

Not all muslims, and not all non-muslims are terrorists

This is doing the rounds on Facebook,

Sets my alarm bell ringing. Reads very much like '2 + 2 = a few, therefore: Jew'. A galloping Gish-ful of shoeshine?

Any set of assertions which uses ' Muslims', 'Arabs' and 'Islamists' as equivalent and interchangeable descriptors deserves to be ripped a new one. I assume peope who post that stuff do actually fact check...

No? See similar tracts about 'the Jews'.

That Peter Hammond chap is a little questionable....

"Frontline Fellowship is a Bible based African mission that has pioneered missionary work into neglected mission fields and areas resistant to the Gospel"

[url= https://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100000074:about-us-v2&catid=55:about-us-cat&Itemid=170 ]Link[/url]

I'm sorry, but "resistant to the Gospel"? Get over yourself Sir. Ever thought those folks might be quite happy?

[url= https://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1266:the-director&catid=55:about-us-cat&Itemid=170 ]Peter Hammond[/url]

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

^ Brutal video that. Perfect example of what happens when you have 'loose' ROE and no checks and balances post-engagement. I can't remember if they were convicted eventually. I'll go google.

Edit- Nope, ruthlessly covered up. Thankfully our ROE was a little more restrictive than that. That was blatant murder. But still nothing compared to what Daesh are doing now. Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.

Murder? Hmm,

positive identification of group with weapons (00.59) and mistaken belief that the camera was an RPG (01.24) cease fire and no shooting at wounded.

Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/margaret-thatcher-iraq_b_3037423.html ]Arming Saddam in the 1st place (including with chemical weapons)[/url] probably didn't help...

Toppling Saddam really did open the Pandora's box of shitstorms there.