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 **** 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.

vickypea

I 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.

“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.”

Not at all. I fully accept some people with some backgrounds will kill and die for their God.

I just don’t accept that someone born and brought up in a Liberal secular democracy like the UK is likely to, and when it turns out he has a history that indicates an anti social personality disorder that seems like a far more likely explanation.

I just don’t accept that someone born and brought up in a Liberal secular democracy like the UK is likely to, and when it turns out he has a history that indicates an anti social personality disorder that seems like a far more likely explanation.

There are plenty of people in the UK who would seem to be Religious Fundamentalists to the left wing atheists hand wringers of STW.

Jehovah Witnesses who knock on people doors and believe the World was made in 7 days.

I was brought up a Catholic and there was a very small group in the Parish who were bat shit mental, some apparently would hold prayer meetings and speak in tongues.

Some people seem to need religion. Luckily neither of the above examples were told that they would go to Heaven if they killed non-believers.

To pretend that there isn’t a dangerous tiny minority in Islam, is foolish and stupid.

It’s not just Islamic extremists who “turn” people. There are many examples of “suggestible” folk falling in with cults of one type or another.

“To pretend that there isn’t a dangerous tiny minority in Islam, is foolish and stupid.”

Nobody is.

All I’m saying is that in the UK these ****s always seem to be pre-disposed to violence, and that can’t be coincidence.

Is it not possible that, amongst a range of possibilities, certain religious teachings provide a “righteous” means of expressing those violent predispositions?

All I’m saying is that in the UK these ****s always seem to be pre-disposed to violence, and that can’t be coincidence.

Like Bilal Abdullah, the Doctor from Buckinghamshire who had no history of violence and attacked Glasgow Airport?

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

Once driverless vehicles are introduced I think you will see manually driven cars disappear quite quickly because of insurance costs. Most people simply won’t be able to afford to drive manually because driverless cars will be so much safer and cheaper to insure.

So I wouldn’t hold my breath for self driving cars to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting driverless technology is a solution to Islamic terrorism. It does create opportunities to counter cars which become weapons (intentionally or accidentally).

It does create opportunities to counter cars which become weapons (intentionally or accidentally).

It’s only software. Pretty straightforward to hack and modify.

“Is it not possible that, amongst a range of possibilities, certain religious teachings provide a “righteous” means of expressing those violent predispositions?”

Very much so IMHO.

“Like Bilal Abdullah, the Doctor from Buckinghamshire who had no history of violence and attacked Glasgow Airport?”

I remember reading his explanation if his motive at the time and it was anger at the Iraq war. Anger I share, so I thought he had a point.

If my memory is wrong and his motive was relegious then, yes, I’ll grant you him.

Religion and Nationalism have much in common. At the outer-edge they give not only ‘license’ but the impetus to treat ‘outsiders’ as ‘vermin’.

How much easier it must be to kill other human if you consider them ‘inhuman’, ‘evil’?

How much easier still if you believe that you will get rewarded in some kind of paradise for doing ‘good’? Whether that paradise is living in/preserving for all eternity a racially ‘pure’ society – or riding in the clouds for all eternity with the most loving/punishing super-dad?

Hacking vehicles to use them in an attack would require skills and resources that wouldn’t be readily available to a lone wolf.

On the other hand for the none lone wolf it would be a way of causing absolute chaos if the security was breached.

“How much easier it must be to kill other human if you consider them ‘inhuman’, ‘evil’?”

I’m sure u’d find it easier, but are you right to regard religious people and nationalists as inhuman and evil?

I’m sure u’d find it easier, but are you right to regard religious people and nationalists as inhuman and evil?

He did state

At the outer-edge

. The Far Right and Fundamentalist Islam have a lot in common and they are some of the most inhuman and evil people on the planet.

On the other hand for the none lone wolf it would be a way of causing absolute chaos if the security was breached.

True, but the challenge is to design a system with appropriate security to prevent mass control for nefarious purposes.

We are already exposed to that risk in almost every aspect of our daily lives, because we depend on networked computer systems for our finance, energy, travel, communications and security.

The Far Right and Fundamentalist Islam have a lot in common and they are some of the most inhuman and evil people on the planet

I’m not aware of the far right committing any terrorism in this country in the last 60 years where as the other lot . . .

I’m not aware of the far right committing any terrorism in this country in the last 60 years

Apart from the minor point of the murder of a MP last year.

You need to get out more.

In April 1999, David Copeland, a neo-Nazi, planted a series of nail bombs over 13 days, causing explosions in Brixton, Brick Lane (in east London), and Soho (in central London). His attacks, which were aimed at London’s black, Bangladeshi and gay communities, resulted in three dead and more than 100 injured.[58] Copeland was a former member of two far right political groups, the British National Party (BNP) and the National Socialist Movement. Copeland told police, “My aim was political. It was to cause a racial war in this country. There’d be a backlash from the ethnic minorities, then all the white people will go out and vote BNP.”[59]

In July 2007, Robert Cottage, a former BNP member, was convicted for possessing explosive chemicals in his home – described by police at the time of his arrest as the largest amount of chemical explosive of its type ever found in that country.[60] In June 2008, Martyn Gilleard, a British Nazi sympathizer, was jailed after police found nail bombs, bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat.[61] Also in 2008, Nathan Worrell was found guilty of possession of material for terrorist purposes and racially aggravated harassment. He was described by anti-terror police as a “dangerous individual”. The court heard that police found books and manuals containing “recipes” to make bombs and detonators using household items, such as weedkiller, at Worrell’s flat.[62] In July 2009, Neil Lewington was planning on waging a terror campaign using weapons made from tennis balls and weedkiller against those he classified as “non British”.[63]

In 2012, the British Home Affairs Committee warned of the threat of far right terrorism in the UK, claiming it had heard “persuasive evidence” about the potential danger and cited the growth of similar threats across Europe.[64]

Members of Combat 18 (C18), a neo-Nazi organisation based on the concept of “leaderless resistance”, have been suspected in numerous deaths of immigrants, non-whites and other C18 members.[65] Between 1998 and 2000, dozens of members were arrested.[66][67] A group calling itself the Racial Volunteer Force split from C18 in 2002, retaining close links to its parent organization.[68] Some journalists believed that the White Wolves were a C18 splinter group, alleging that the group had been set up by Del O’Connor, the former second-in-command of C18 and member of Skrewdriver Security.[69] C18 attacks on immigrants continued through 2009.[70] Weapons, ammunition and explosives were seized by police in the UK and almost every country in which C18 was active.

In 2016, Jo Cox, the Member of Parliament (MP) for the Batley and Spen constituency was murdered by Thomas Mair, who was motivated by far-right political views and had connections to several far-right organisations in the UK, US, and South Africa.[71]

On 16 December 2016 Home Secretary Amber Rudd designated the far-right, neo-Nazi National Action group as a terrorist organisation which criminalises membership or support for the organisation.[72]

From Wikipedia……..so you do need to get out more.

Although he was fascinated by the far right he wasn’t affiliated to any far right group. Just a sick, mentally deranged individual.

I get out enough thanks.

Although he was fascinated by the far right he wasn’t affiliated to any far right group. Just a sick, mentally deranged individual.

A bit like Khalid Masood then?

Although he was fascinated by the far right he wasn’t affiliated to any far right group. Just a sick, mentally deranged individual.

And David Copeland?

You did say..

I’m not aware of the far right committing any terrorism in this country in the last 60 years where as the other lot . . .

So you are only far right if you’ve got the correct affiliation?

Need a venn diagram here but can’t be bothered to create one and post it.

1. There a number of gullible/easily influenced people (influenced by political ideology, religion etc,.)
2. There are a number of violent people with tendencies to kill
3. There are a number of people who become mentally ill in a way which could lead to them killing

The terrorist is at the intersection between gullible and tendencies to ill (which mental illness accounting for some of them)

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/30/myth-lone-wolf-terrorist

Really, really good article.

If such facts fit awkwardly with the commonly accepted idea of the lone wolf, they fit better with academic research that has shown that very few violent extremists who launch attacks act without letting others know what they may be planning. In the late 1990s, after realising that in most instances school shooters would reveal their intentions to close associates before acting, the FBI began to talk about “leakage” of critical information. By 2009, it had extended the concept to terrorist attacks, and found that “leakage” was identifiable in more than four-fifths of 80 ongoing cases they were investigating. Of these leaks, 95% were to friends, close relatives or authority figures.

But perhaps the most disquieting explanation for the ubiquity of the term is that it tells us something we want to believe. Yes, the terrorist threat now appears much more amorphous and unpredictable than ever before. At the same time, the idea that terrorists operate alone allows us to break the link between an act of violence and its ideological hinterland. It implies that the responsibility for an individual’s violent extremism lies solely with the individual themselves.

The truth is much more disturbing. Terrorism is not something you do by yourself, it is highly social. People become interested in ideas, ideologies and activities, even appalling ones, because other people are interested in them.

In his eulogy at the funeral of those killed in the mosque shooting in Quebec, the imam Hassan Guillet spoke of the alleged shooter. Over previous days details had emerged of the young man’s life. “Alexandre [Bissonette], before being a killer, was a victim himself,” said Hassan. “Before he planted his bullets in the heads of his victims, somebody planted ideas more dangerous than the bullets in his head. Unfortunately, day after day, week after week, month after month, certain politicians, and certain reporters and certain media, poisoned our atmosphere.