Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

This is not true. These very forums are full of various forms of protest and arguments about what the borderlines are. It may indeed be virtue signaling, but it's a virtue worth signaling about.

Here are a few non-Islam examples:
Kathy Griffin holds up a bloody Trump mask; should she pay a penalty?
Professor takes the "wrong side" in a free speech issue; should he be fired?
Someone in Switzerland "likes" a facebook post; should they face criminal charges?

And those are only the active threads that come to mind.

Not addressed to me I know, however, but here's my take on Freedom of Speech:

Standing in Finsbury Park and shouting "I hate all you infidels and your disgusting, decadent way of life, and I hope you all die horribly" is an opinion which that person is entitled to. It makes them a complete dick given the context and circumstances, and perhaps might warrant them being placed on a 'watch list', but being a dick and expressing your worthless opinion - while annoying and offensive - isn't illegal.

Standing in Finsbury Park and calling for all your 'brothers' to kill the infidels is illegal and should result in arrest and imprisonment/deportation.

Holding up a bloody Trump mask is dependant on context - if it's being done in a manner inviting people to consider killing the President, then it's illegal. It's definitely tasteless, and probably should result in that person being paid attention to.

The Professor - again depends on context, and also his employers terms and conditions that he/she will have signed up to willingly.

Someone 'liking a Facebook post' - again, context - is the post inciting violence, or illegal activity? If not, then why would they face criminal charges?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

I was going to respond to him in very robust and frank terms, but it would have contravened the MA.

Quick question to you both; I don't advocate a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the UK based purely on their religion (but I do think Muslim immigrants should be subject to much more scrutiny), but why do you think it's 'wrong', or morally objectionable to blanket ban people from entering a country that isn't theirs on a permanent basis? Are you suggesting the UK/western countries are morally obliged to allow anyone into our country who wants to come? I contend that it was Tony Blair/New Labours 'Cultural Melting Pot' policy that contributed to the situation we are in now in no small way.

 

[uke2se]

Quick question to you both; I don't advocate a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the UK based purely on their religion (but I do think Muslim immigrants should be subject to much more scrutiny), but why do you think it's 'wrong', or morally objectionable to blanket ban people from entering a country that isn't theirs on a permanent basis? Are you suggesting the UK/western countries are morally obliged to allow anyone into our country who wants to come? I contend that it was Tony Blair/New Labours 'Cultural Melting Pot' policy that contributed to the situation we are in now in no small way.

Well, for one, it wouldn't solve the problem. Looking at the Manchester attack as the last major terror attack (before this one, and we don't know enough about the perpetrators yet), the perpetrator was born in the UK.

For two, more or less blaming an entire national population, or worse, ethnic or religious group, for something a couple of criminals did fosters resentment and suspicion. It's better to affirm the fact that the vast majority of people, Muslim or not, are not terrorists, and want nothing to do with their vile ideology.

It's worth keeping in mind that overreaction from the West is exactly what the terrorists want. They want us to start treating Muslims as second class citizens, enacting pogroms and bans. This makes it easier for them to recruit the angry young men they need to continue their criminal activities. They want a religious war. We should not give it to them.

 

[The Don]

Quick question to you both; I don't advocate a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the UK based purely on their religion (but I do think Muslim immigrants should be subject to much more scrutiny), but why do you think it's 'wrong', or morally objectionable to blanket ban people from entering a country that isn't theirs on a permanent basis? Are you suggesting the UK/western countries are morally obliged to allow anyone into our country who wants to come? I contend that it was Tony Blair/New Labours 'Cultural Melting Pot' policy that contributed to the situation we are in now in no small way.

I think it's wrong to attempt to blanket ban an entire religion (or adherents to that religion from a range of countries) for a number of reasons.

Firstly we would be hamstringing the UK economy by denying ourselves access to skilled people. As well as eliminating access to people from those countries, we'd also be a much less attractive to adherents to that faith from other countries. It's not so much that we have an obligation to allow anyone in, but rather that we're denying ourselves access to a entire pool of talent - or export markets by taking that move.

Secondly we're sending a message to all Muslims that we don't trust them, not just terrorists but all Muslims. This will help to fuel the sense of isolation and a religion under attack that those who seek to radicalise rely upon to enable them to groom their targets more effectively.

Thirdly such a ban will IMO at best be ineffective at reducing the number of terrorist attacks in the UK and I fear that it will likely increase them. Those that want to get into the country will do so illegally, by assuming a different identity, coming in from a different country or indeed not coming through the immigration process at all. From having a tiny, tiny fraction of Muslim immigrants being a terrorist risk, you will end up having a large minority or even majority. Of course the vast majority of attacks in the UK have been carried out by UK nationals and IMO any ban will increase the number of home grown radicals.

Fourthly, it's exactly what radical Islamists appear to want. Instead of an invented war by Crusaders against their religion and its adherents, they'll have tangible evidence that it's the case. They'd like it to go further and there be wide-scale rounding up of Muslims, internment camps, military action in the Middle East, the whole nine yards.

The continuing mess in Israel/Palestine IMO shows how impossibly difficult it is to stop terrorism. Every action my the Israeli authorities whether I'd consider it to be placatory or aggressive towards the terrorists just seems to result in more terrorism.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I'd like to know why the Islam apologists care so much about defending Islam. It's like the people who volunteer to provide counselling for rapists and murderers in prison. Is there nothing better they could spend their energy on?

After the Manchester attack a Reverend got some serious air time on Sky news. His sole agenda was to defend religion - he was effectively saying "this attack had nothing to do with religion". It was disgusting.

I didn't hear that particular Rev but hav heard various others during the week.


On a slightly different aspect...
People's kindness and generosity - raising money for the families of last week's victims and considering setting up some kind of memorial - is genuine, sincere and heart-warming, but I do just wonder whether this should be put temporarily on hold while focus is kept on the need to bring the level of danger down to a more 'normal' one. I do not think this would mean victims and families would be forgotten and maybe, just maybe, a greater degree of unity might result.

 

[Darat]

Firstly, the IRA were not a 'Christian' terror organisation - their motives were purely political. Yes, the religious element involved was a big, inextricable part of the troubles, but not the main motivation. The two sides were divided by Unionism or Republicanism, which usually had religious connotations, but the IRA were not doing what they did in the name of religion, so let's dispel that apologist nonsense right now.

Back to current events then. Should we start deporting all Muslims from the UK? No. Should we be thoroughly and robustly investigating anyone with links to Islamic terrorism in the UK? Absolutely.

In many of the incidents in Europe of late, the authorities have admitted that the attackers were 'known' to them, or on some kind of 'watch list'. If this is the case then let's stop pussy-footing around these people; tag them - restrict and monitor their movements; deport or detain them if possible and necessary. We also need to put an end to insular Islamic communities where this kind of terrorism is being bred, there needs to be more transparency and integration; we need to put an end to the ridiculous politically correct attitudes about religion that have become prevalent in society that are hamstringing the Government and authorities; a person or groups religious beliefs should be personal, but afford them absolutely ZERO concessions when it comes to the laws of this country, or when it comes to a criminal investigation.

Yes, I'm mainly talking about Islam and Islamic extremists here, because that's the problem we face at present, but NO religious beliefs should be afforded such respect that it becomes difficult to act against a terror threat linked to that religion.

Theresa May gave her reaction this morning, and it looks like she could be suggesting the kid gloves are coming off:



http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-m...ows-we-are-too-tolerant-of-extremism-10903867

About bloody time.

Well if she gets into government she will for the first time be in a position when she can implement her policies on counter-terrorism! Hopefully she will scrap many of the failed policies the last PM and last but one Home Secretary implemented.....

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Well, for one, it wouldn't solve the problem. Looking at the Manchester attack as the last major terror attack (before this one, and we don't know enough about the perpetrators yet), the perpetrator was born in the UK.

For two, more or less blaming an entire national population, or worse, ethnic or religious group, for something a couple of criminals did fosters resentment and suspicion. It's better to affirm the fact that the vast majority of people, Muslim or not, are not terrorists, and want nothing to do with their vile ideology.

It's worth keeping in mind that overreaction from the West is exactly what the terrorists want. They want us to start treating Muslims as second class citizens, enacting pogroms and bans. This makes it easier for them to recruit the angry young men they need to continue their criminal activities. They want a religious war. We should not give it to them.

All fair points, but on the flip side, it could be argued that the last perpetrator wouldn't have been born here, or been in an environment where he could have been radicalised had the UK had a more robust immigration policy.

And there's still this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...etween-muslim-values-and-rest-of-uk-d30hl55lk

Now I'm not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists - that would be ridiculous - but how many more atrocities have to be carried out in the name of Islam - a RELIGION - from within our own country before it becomes necessary and simply safer to take action against the religion as a whole?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Well if she gets into government she will for the first time be in a position when she can implement her policies on counter-terrorism! Hopefully she will scrap many of the failed policies the last PM and last but one Home Secretary implemented.....

Whatever she does will result in outcry from some. I would sincerely hope that she will be given the freedom to be a lot more robust in the future, and not hampered by having to tiptoe around the religious beliefs of a minority.

 

[Aber]

Well if she gets into government she will for the first time be in a position when she can implement her policies on counter-terrorism! Hopefully she will scrap many of the failed policies the last PM and last but one Home Secretary implemented.....

What, the ones that have reportedly stopped over 90% of attacks?

 

[David RP]

All fair points, but on the flip side, it could be argued that the last perpetrator wouldn't have been born here, or been in an environment where he could have been radicalised had the UK had a more robust immigration policy.

And there's still this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...etween-muslim-values-and-rest-of-uk-d30hl55lk

Now I'm not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists - that would be ridiculous - but how many more atrocities have to be carried out in the name of Islam - a RELIGION - from within our own country before it becomes necessary and simply safer to take action against the religion as a whole?

How and what practical type of action would you suggest taking against a religion?

 

[uke2se]

All fair points, but on the flip side, it could be argued that the last perpetrator wouldn't have been born here, or been in an environment where he could have been radicalised had the UK had a more robust immigration policy.

It could be, but not intelligently. If we are to expect individuals of coming generations to commit horrible crimes, we might as well argue that nobody breed children, because some of them will become criminals.

And there's still this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...etween-muslim-values-and-rest-of-uk-d30hl55lk

Maybe work on that then? Instead of making British Muslims even more contrary to Western values by banning other Muslims from entering the country.

Now I'm not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists - that would be ridiculous - but how many more atrocities have to be carried out in the name of Islam - a RELIGION - from within our own country before it becomes necessary and simply safer to take action against the religion as a whole?

Not the question you should ask. The question is rather, how many casualties are you prepared to take to preserve OUR values of democracy and freedom.

 

[applecorped]

This is pretty much what people are looking at for Stockholm after the truck attack there. According to a report I heard on the radio, they are looking at imposing a speed limit on all pedestrian streets, so no vehicle can drive faster than a certain speed.

Oh boy! That'll stop terrorists! A speed limit!

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

How and what practical type of action would you suggest taking against a religion?

I don't know - haven't given it much thought - the question was more rhetorical than anything else.

My thoughts on the subject are basically that religion - in general - should not be pandered to as much as it currently is, and that immigrants to this country are free to believe what they like privately, but they should integrate into our culture wherever possible without concession being made to their belief in an imaginary god.

 

[baron]

For those unaware of who Tommy Robinson is and who wish to spare themselves several minutes of spittle-flecked racist invective here is a snippet from Tommy Robinson's Wikipedia page:

Or they could skip Wiki and do their own research. You are totally wrong about Robinson, he is not a racist.

 

[marplots]

Or they could skip Wiki and do their own research. You are totally wrong about Robinson, he is not a racist.

He looks pretty white.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

It could be, but not intelligently. If we are to expect individuals of coming generations to commit horrible crimes, we might as well argue that nobody breed children, because some of them will become criminals.

No. That's an extreme I didn't suggest, or advocate. What I'm getting at is breaking up/integration enclaves/hotbeds of religion which allow/foster the production of terrorists.

Maybe work on that then? Instead of making British Muslims even more contrary to Western values by banning other Muslims from entering the country.

If they're law-abiding British Muslims, then they shouldn't have an issue with strict measures designed to protect them and their fellow Brits.

Not the question you should ask. The question is rather, how many casualties are you prepared to take to preserve OUR values of democracy and freedom.

Same question, just worded differently.

 

[uke2se]

Or they could skip Wiki and do their own research. You are totally wrong about Robinson, he is not a racist.

Seems like he is.

 

[uke2se]

No. That's an extreme I didn't suggest, or advocate. What I'm getting at is breaking up/integration enclaves/hotbeds of religion which allow/foster the production of terrorists.

How do you go about achieving that objective by banning Muslims from entering the country?

If they're law-abiding British Muslims, then they shouldn't have an issue with strict measures designed to protect them and their fellow Brits.

I think they have a problem with being characterized as suspicious by their fellow brits simply because of what God they worship.

Same question, just worded differently.

No, completely different question, as it shows that what we're really dealing with here is an assault on our values, by the terrorists and by the people who advocate for draconian measures to defend against terrorism.

 

[The Don]

Or they could skip Wiki and do their own research. You are totally wrong about Robinson, he is not a racist.

Perhaps he isn't, he just belongs to (and even starts) racist organisations, says racist things and takes racist actions. His entire life could be one long false-flag .

 

[baron]

This is not true. These very forums are full of various forms of protest and arguments about what the borderlines are. It may indeed be virtue signaling, but it's a virtue worth signaling about.

Here are a few non-Islam examples:
Kathy Griffin holds up a bloody Trump mask; should she pay a penalty?
Professor takes the "wrong side" in a free speech issue; should he be fired?
Someone in Switzerland "likes" a facebook post; should they face criminal charges?

And those are only the active threads that come to mind.

I'll only respond once as I won't want to divert the thread more than necessary: Yes, those are all examples of discussions around free speech. What sets them apart is that they tend to be balanced. For example, although I've not even seen the Trump mask thread I'll bet you that there is a great deal of criticism of Trump from even those who says what this Griffin did was inappropriate. In other words, there is discussion, not apologetics. You see the latter in one of the very first posts here, in which I am called a '*********** moron' for associating this incidence of Islamic terrorism with, er, Islam. No mention of the terrorist incident, no mention of the deaths, just a blind and hysterical defence of anything that could be considered Islamic or linked to Islam. Other are quick to post criticisms... of Christianity. A criticism of Christianity but no mention of the Islamic attacks in a thread about an Islamic attack. If you can show me a clearer practical instance of apologetics I'm all ears.