Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Darat]

You cannot shoehorn the IRA issue into your fond bugbear of 'religious terrorism'. We can see the IRA were a political movement, as even the UK government accepted its members were political prisoners and jailed them in separate internment camps to ordinary HM Prisons.

The IRA acts of terror were an abomination. However, they did try to phone a warning in advance and aimed for political buildings, although, many civilians and off-duty soldiers were unlawfully killed.

It s a far cry from a jihadist running down a busy tourist part of London slashing the throats of young woman, as well as everybody else in their path, having run over people walking along a pavement, enjoying a balmy summer evening out along London's enbankment area.

It doesn't work.

Pray tell me what political buildings were being targeted in the second Warrington bombing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks?wprov=sfla1

 

[mgidm86]

It's easy enough to install concrete blocks to prevent cars mounting the pavement. I am surprised that after the Westminster Bridge attack they didn't immediately do this to make other Central London bridges secure from pedestrians being mown down, given what happened in Nice, Berlin and Stockholm.

It won't stop terrorism, but it's a start.

I don't believe it is. They will just shift their attacks to other walkways in the city, or kill in different ways. That's like chasing your tails.

They'll switch to another attack method before you mix the first batch of cement. You're playing by their rules when you do that.

Some people here in the US fight gun laws by comparing the death rate to car accidents. They are usually scoffed at, but many of the recent terror attacks have been carried out with a vehicle.

So you block the sidewalks, then what? It won't help.

 

[ddt]

Most Muslims will report terrorist activity to the police. If you did a poll of the Muslims you work with or your Muslim friends then the figure may well approach 100%. However, there are entire communities of Muslims who would not dream of reporting anything to the police, let alone suspicions of jihad. Therefore, the presence of potential terrorists (and actual terrorists) in their midst will not generate a single report. The average reporting figure is 70% across the UK, yes, but that tells you little about the real problem, which emerges from core cess-pits of Islamic extremism which exist in dozens of towns and cities across the UK.

Oh, I agree with you absolutely there are such cesspools of Islamic extremism. My back-of-an-envelope calculation was a bit cheap in that, obviously, the probabilities of the individual friends and family members of one wannabe-jihadist are not independent of each other. However, that also means that for those wannabes outside those cesspools, the probability that someone close reports suspicious activity or inclination approaches very near to 100%.

What we've also seen in all terrorist attacks thus far is a definite pattern on the jihadist(s) in question:
(a) they're all second generation, born and raised in the West
(b) their parents are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens who are abhorred once they find out what their son(s) have been up to.

One can only hope that each such terrorist attack is a wake-up call to such parents who are not quite sure what their son(s) are doing in their free time.

 

[baron]

I don't see how using a pseudonym really helps him here. His face is all over the interwebs.

He joined the BNP, then founded the EDL and then founded the Britain First Party. It's just a big coincidence that he happens to be in racist places?

I don't want to go too far off-topic but if you have any interest in Robinson and the anti-Islamic extremist movement then I urge you to do some research. Your information is wrong and Robinson is an outspoken proponent of multiculturalism. Unfortunately many genuine racists use the cover of being anti-Islam for their fascist views. Robinson is absolutely not one of these. Don't believe the leftist media, find out for yourself, you may be surprised.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

We started this conversation discussing why it's wrong to issue a blanket ban on Muslims. I thought that was still what we were discussing.

And I've already said that I don't condone that. What else would you like me to say?

Because it would single out a religious minority. Not exactly rocket science.

It would single out people from a certain religion who do not reside in the UK, and preventing them from entering the UK. Why should a British Muslim already resident in the UK be bothered by that? As long as nobody is persecuting them or treating them differently?

Are you being serious right now?

Yes. Why? What's wrong with integrating with the wider community that you have personally chosen to live within? Insular Muslim communities are spawning these extremists, is it unreasonable to expect people to be wary of them? Is it unreasonable to expect these communities to reach out to the people of the cities and towns that they chose to move to from a foreign country and integrate?

Because they are Muslim.

You'd be surprised how many British Muslims don't define themselves by their religion, but as British citizens. Do you seriously think the Muslim guy in our accounts department is worried about being treated differently at work tomorrow - any more than he was after the Manchester bombing? I'll answer that - he wasn't. Because it wasn't even an issue, for him and anyone else, because he's just as British as the rest of us, but he just happens to be a Muslim.

So, you are in fact advocating Draconian measures, because you don't care about "worrying the sensibilities" of Muslims.

I am? How the hell did you come to that conclusion? How is allowing our authorities to do their job without restriction of worrying about the religious sensibilities of ANYONE 'Draconian'? Surely that's just common sense?

It doesn't matter if it's political terrorism or not. That has no bearing on the point I made.

It matters when people incorrectly try to make parallels to the IRA as 'Christian Terrorists' in order to try and downplay what happened.

People who advocate for undercutting Western values by singling out religious minorities for various forms of extra scrutiny are engaged in just the same type of assault on our values as the terrorists are. I would argue that people like that are a much greater threat to Western society than all the world's Islamist terrorists, simply because stupid people listen to them and then "feel" the rightness of their fascist tendencies. That's what has been happening in the West for at least the last decade. The right wing fascists are gaining ever more power because stupid people are worried about Terrorists. It's a double-pronged assault.

What rubbish. 'Right Wing Fascists' have no power whatsoever in the UK. Secondly, insular Muslim communities giving rise to 'homegrown' terrorists is a reality. Are you suggesting that it is 'Draconian' to focus on the proven source of the issue? Nobody is suggesting martial law or internment camps, but it makes absolute sense to pay more attention to these communities, monitor them, and attempt to make them less insular and sheltering for terrorists.

 

[baron]

Oh, I agree with you absolutely there are such cesspools of Islamic extremism. My back-of-an-envelope calculation was a bit cheap in that, obviously, the probabilities of the individual friends and family members of one wannabe-jihadist are not independent of each other. However, that also means that for those wannabes outside those cesspools, the probability that someone close reports suspicious activity or inclination approaches very near to 100%.

What we've also seen in all terrorist attacks thus far is a definite pattern on the jihadist(s) in question:
(a) they're all second generation, born and raised in the West
(b) their parents are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens who are abhorred once they find out what their son(s) have been up to.

One can only hope that each such terrorist attack is a wake-up call to such parents who are not quite sure what their son(s) are doing in their free time.

I'll go along with a) but I strongly question b). For example, the father of the Manchester concert bomber was an Islamic soldier and is a terrorist supporter who publicly supports Al Qaeda and Islamic jihad. He's now under arrest AFAIK.

 

[baron]

So... you're unironically going along with this?

Is there a reason why all three of your posts in this thread about an Islamic terror attack are an attempt to smear Christianity? Have you anything to actually say on the topic?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You seem to have forgotten that various Protestant Loyalist/Unionist paramilitary groups absolutely targeted Catholics for their religion.

No, I haven't. Religious Sectarianism was a huge problem in Northern Ireland, especially when you're caught in between the two sides trying to stop them from getting to each other... However, that does not change the fact that the IRA's main objective was the unification of Ireland through political and violent means.

The IRA even had their own newspaper - 'An Phoblacht', which translates to "The Republic". It was also known as "The Republican News", funnily enough it was never called "The Catholic", or "Catholic News".

 

[Ambrosia]

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?

Islamic extremists are carrying out attacks based on their own twisted interpretation of Islam. Hence the name extremists.

All you have to do is read some articles on how life is in ISIS controlled territory, and how much that differs from mainstream Islam to understand the differences.

It's just not practical to single out an entire religion for 'action' - we'd lose far more than we gained and we probably wouldn't even be much more secure.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I don't want to go too far off-topic but if you have any interest in Robinson and the anti-Islamic extremist movement then I urge you to do some research. Your information is wrong and Robinson is an outspoken proponent of multiculturalism. Unfortunately many genuine racists use the cover of being anti-Islam for their fascist views. Robinson is absolutely not one of these. Don't believe the leftist media, find out for yourself, you may be surprised.

It's all too easy to label Tommy Robinson as a racist, just as it is anyone who you wish to discredit. One of the worst things a person in this day and age can be called is 'racist', but people are very quick to throw it out there.

Tommy Robinson is by no means an intelligent man, or a particularly nice man, and he absolutely HATES Muslim extremists, or Muslims living in the UK who support Islamic Terror, or threaten the British way of life. That doesn't necessarily make him an out and out racist. What we're seeing in Tommy Robinson is the - not entirely unexpected - reaction of many common British people who perhaps wouldn't necessarily voice the sentiment in public. This is why the EDL attracted mainly uneducated thugs and racists as it's public face.

Tommy's reasoning behind forming the EDL was to counter plans to protest a parade by British troops returning from Afghanistan by Islamic hate groups. He was also motivated by seeing Muslims allegedly recruiting for people to go and fight in Afghanistan, on the streets of Luton. Given that things like this were not uncommon in Luton at the time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA

Is it any wonder we have a Tommy Robinson?

 

[Ambrosia]

No, I haven't. Religious Sectarianism was a huge problem in Northern Ireland, especially when you're caught in between the two sides trying to stop them from getting to each other... However, that does not change the fact that the IRA's main objective was the unification of Ireland through political and violent means.

This is broadly true, but the Troubles could vary from a politically driven conflict, to a religiously driven one depending on who you talked to. There were people on both sides driven by religious ideals and those driven by unification ideals, lots of people were a bit of both. ( I grew up in N. Ireland in the late 70's and early 80's) the whole thing was extremely complicated.

I can't think of any past conflicts between nations, or factions within nations that are roughly analogous to ISIS vs everyone else. ISIS are a religious cult that are hyper violent, want to return the world to medieval values and kill anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with them. They are an entirely new kind of problem.

 

[Garrison]

Islamic extremists are carrying out attacks based on their own twisted interpretation of Islam. Hence the name extremists.

All you have to do is read some articles on how life is in ISIS controlled territory, and how much that differs from mainstream Islam to understand the differences.

It's just not practical to single out an entire religion for 'action' - we'd lose far more than we gained and we probably wouldn't even be much more secure.

Don't worry, the USA has identified the country at the very heart of the spread of extremism...and sold it $110 Billion dollars worth of advanced weapons.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Islamic extremists are carrying out attacks based on their own twisted interpretation of Islam. Hence the name extremists.

All you have to do is read some articles on how life is in ISIS controlled territory, and how much that differs from mainstream Islam to understand the differences.

It's just not practical to single out an entire religion for 'action' - we'd lose far more than we gained and we probably wouldn't even be much more secure.

I completely agree. I don't advocate a general 'singling out' of the Muslim community wholesale, but we know beyond doubt that insular Muslim communities are producing terrorists, so we simply cannot afford to tiptoe around them any more for fear of upsetting anyone. I'm not sure how to exactly go about it, and I'm certainly not suggesting Martial Law in these communities, but we have to start being more robust.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

This is broadly true, but the Troubles could vary from a politically driven conflict, to a religiously driven one depending on who you talked to. There were people on both sides driven by religious ideals and those driven by unification ideals, lots of people were a bit of both. ( I grew up in N. Ireland in the late 70's and early 80's) the whole thing was extremely complicated.

Certainly the religious aspect of the conflict was inextricable but, as I said earlier, the religious aspect was a result of the invasion, carving up and settling of Ireland a few hundred years prior, but the IRA weren't blowing up buildings or policemen/soldiers because they wanted everyone to turn Catholic - they wanted the Brits out and a return to a unified Ireland - which they hoped would improve the lot of the Irish Catholics, yes, among other reasons. But again, they weren't trying to convert anyone.

I can't think of any past conflicts between nations, or factions within nations that are roughly analogous to ISIS vs everyone else. ISIS are a religious cult that are hyper violent, want to return the world to medieval values and kill anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with them. They are an entirely new kind of problem.

Agreed. Islamic terrorism is purely based on hatred of the way of life of others, and imposing their version of religion on infidels - or death. Mostly Death.

 

[Darat]

I completely agree. I don't advocate a general 'singling out' of the Muslim community wholesale, but we know beyond doubt that insular Muslim communities are producing terrorists, so we simply cannot afford to tiptoe around them any more for fear of upsetting anyone. I'm not sure how to exactly go about it, and I'm certainly not suggesting Martial Law in these communities, but we have to start being more robust.

Evidence for this (ETA) the pink bit? Many of the terrorists I've read about were part of mainstream culture most of their life, you read that they went to college, went partying and so on.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Evidence for this (ETA) the pink bit? Many of the terrorists I've read about were part of mainstream culture most of their life, you read that they went to college, went partying and so on.

Yes, many of them did. Then they returned to insular Muslim communities and became radicalised - either through their own choices, or by those around them.
Which is what happened with the killers of Lee Rigby - they were apparently radicalised in Woolwich, which has a close-knit Muslim community.

There are plenty of insular Muslim communities in the UK.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ommunity-rise-of-the-burka-Koran-religion/amp

Let's see what comes out of last nights attacks, and the 12 arrests in Barking today...

 

[mgidm86]

Oh, I agree with you absolutely there are such cesspools of Islamic extremism. My back-of-an-envelope calculation was a bit cheap in that, obviously, the probabilities of the individual friends and family members of one wannabe-jihadist are not independent of each other. However, that also means that for those wannabes outside those cesspools, the probability that someone close reports suspicious activity or inclination approaches very near to 100%.

What we've also seen in all terrorist attacks thus far is a definite pattern on the jihadist(s) in question:
(a) they're all second generation, born and raised in the West
(b) their parents are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens who are abhorred once they find out what their son(s) have been up to.

One can only hope that each such terrorist attack is a wake-up call to such parents who are not quite sure what their son(s) are doing in their free time.

And daughters. Not all terrorists are men.

I disagree in the definite pattern. We don't even know who most of these people are. A total of 12 people have been detained so far in connection with the London attacks. Maybe they weren't all involved but these are not necessarily small two-man operations, even though they may appear to be.

And just because the parents seem to care and act normal during press conferences, or have money and live in nice homes, does not mean that they are good parents, or that they are not a direct part of the problem.

Again, bad parenting is often blamed for the problems with gangs, but it almost never fails that the parents will go on TV and say what a wonderful child their son was, gentle giant and all that.

San Bernardino - people who knew them looked the other way when they saw warning signs. Why? Because they were afraid of being un-PC, according to them.

a) no they are not all born and raised in the West. Maybe you are referring to the UK, but as an example the female San Bernardino shooter was from Pakistan.

I don't think we should rely on the parents getting a wakeup call. If that were likely to happen then our gang problems (US anyways) would be diminishing I would think. The cycle of bad parenting seems perpetual.

I think we need a more proactive approach. What that is I'm not sure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2015/12/14/voices-muslim-terrorist-gray-zone/77108980/

Moderate Muslim families and communities will play an increasingly key role in preventing more Americans from carrying out attacks in the U.S. “The Muslim community is critical in that regard,” Venzke told me. “That can’t be stressed enough.”

I don't see that happening in our inner city gangs, but maybe Muslims are different. Certainly possible, they couldn't be much worse.

 

[mgidm86]

From my last post (sorry edit function is failing):

Moderate Muslim families and communities will play an increasingly key role in preventing more Americans from carrying out attacks in the U.S. “The Muslim community is critical in that regard,” Venzke told me. “That can’t be stressed enough.”

Almost missed that bit. If you come here to "go jihad" on some people, like the San Bernardino woman, then you aren't really American, you're an invader, enemy combatant.

To say Americans are doing this, while technically (possibly) correct, is disingenuous. How many times did the Boston bombers go to the middle east before they did their thing?

Were any of the 9/11 terrorists really Americans? They planned the attack for years, going to flight school in the US.

 

[William Parcher]

CNN is reporting that ISIS is claiming responsibility. It's probably true.

But are there any Muslim terror attacks that aren't related to ISIS? They all seem to either be trained by them or pledge allegiance to them. Are there any attacking Muslim terrorists who have denounced ISIS or verbally distanced themselves? Does anyone say, "ISIS had nothing to do with me (us) or what I (we) just did"?

 

[Darat]

Yes, many of them did. Then they returned to insular Muslim communities and became radicalised - either through their own choices, or by those around them.
Which is what happened with the killers of Lee Rigby - they were apparently radicalised in Woolwich, which has a close-knit Muslim community.

There are plenty of insular Muslim communities in the UK.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ommunity-rise-of-the-burka-Koran-religion/amp

Let's see what comes out of last nights attacks, and the 12 arrests in Barking today...

I don't doubt there are insular communities, we still have those for descendents of immigrants who came here a hundred years ago. It is whether there is a link to them and increased likely hood of terrorists coming from such communities. If there is then that would presumably be useful in trying to stop the type of radicalism that leads to terrorism.