Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

Vixen said:
I think you are wrong. The built up Muslim communities of East London, Birmingham and Yorkshire are NOT bottle-trhowing looters. It's important not to conflate the terrorism issue with some of the riots we have seen.

A few years ago a couple of cops knocked on my door and it was a friendly visit. They wanted to know if there was anything in my area that I had concerns about, and, despite living in what is often called 'the poor man's Hampstead' [Camden], I had no issues. Say this was Barking, I might have mentioned concerns of radicialisation in my Mosque, because you know, Muslims ARE reporting radicalisation to police, but many may be loath to actually pick up a phone.

I was surprised at how well-spoken the cops were (public school?) and true to urban myth, they were indeed very young, and awfully nice.

So that is another opportunity to shake off the myth cops are standoffish.

ETA In addition, a local college has signs in the lifts and toilets urging students to report radicalisation attempts.
Click to expand...
I think it's sad that "radicalization" is enough of an issue that signs like that are even possible. I don't recall seeing signs like that when I visited your country in 1980.
 
For some reason this thread leads me to voice what I suspect are unpopular opinions. My uncomfortable concept of the day? The three terror attacks since March in England killed some 30 people, whereas approximately 160 people in the UK died of falling down stairs over the same 3 month period (more than 5 times greater). Transportation accident fatalities were much higher than that. Illnesses far higher still!

I am not suggesting that accidents and terror attacks are comparable- the emotional impact of people being blown apart by evil murderers verses people hitting their heads on a stair tread is quite different. And I am not dismissing in any way the special suffering of the victims of these dreadful events and of their families- I can’t even begin to imagine how I would feel if I knew any of them personally. But logic, not emotions, not even justifiable emotions, must play the dominant role in defining an effective and appropriate response. Just how much should these events rush us (forgive me because I am speaking broadly, I am not British, although I have a very warm spot in my heart for the British and UK) into lashing out with poorly considered laws that take any from our own freedoms? How much do we wish to turn away from justice and punish innocent people as a result of our horror? How much do we want fear to take away our humanity and willingness to help those in need? Just what type of military actions should we embark on without a clear understanding of what the end game will be and if these actions will actually have a positive effect? Particularly important questions when the terrorists clearly want us to do just these things; they believe it will strength their cause (and history suggests it well might). We don’t seem to be driven to reckless responses by the 160 deaths due to falling down stairs (“Architects who put stairs into houses are to be imprisoned as dangerous killers. All foreign architects will be banned from entering the country and those already here will be targets of our security departments and treated publicly as trash.”). Approximately 30 people died- awful, dreadful, evil! More are likely to do so and we must prevent that as much as possible. But we must not let the emotions from what has and may happen overwhelm us into ignoring the true level of the risk. I know most people here agree, but not everyone else seems to understand that it is crucial to get our emotions under control first, to obtain a sense of perspective and calm, before we rush and do stupid and dangerous things that will hurt us and others far more than help anyone. And we must not blame an entire religion, any religion, for the evil done by some of its members.
 
Giordano said:
For some reason this thread leads me to voice what I suspect are unpopular opinions. My uncomfortable concept of the day? The three terror attacks since March in England killed some 30 people, whereas approximately 160 people in the UK died of falling down stairs over the same 3 month period (more than 5 times greater). Transportation accident fatalities were much higher than that. Illnesses far higher still!

I am not suggesting that accidents and terror attacks are comparable- the emotional impact of people being blown apart by evil murderers verses people hitting their heads on a stair tread is quite different. And I am not dismissing in any way the special suffering of the victims of these dreadful events and of their families- I can’t even begin to imagine how I would feel if I knew any of them personally. But logic, not emotions, not even justifiable emotions, must play the dominant role in defining an effective and appropriate response. Just how much should these events rush us (forgive me because I am speaking broadly, I am not British, although I have a very warm spot in my heart for the British and UK) into lashing out with poorly considered laws that take any from our own freedoms? How much do we wish to turn away from justice and punish innocent people as a result of our horror? How much do we want fear to take away our humanity and willingness to help those in need? Just what type of military actions should we embark on without a clear understanding of what the end game will be and if these actions will actually have a positive effect? Particularly important questions when the terrorists clearly want us to do just these things; they believe it will strength their cause (and history suggests it well might). We don’t seem to be driven to reckless responses by the 160 deaths due to falling down stairs (“Architects who put stairs into houses are to be imprisoned as dangerous killers. All foreign architects will be banned from entering the country and those already here will be targets of our security departments and treated publicly as trash.”). Approximately 30 people died- awful, dreadful, evil! More are likely to do so and we must prevent that as much as possible. But we must not let the emotions from what has and may happen overwhelm us into ignoring the true level of the risk. I know most people here agree, but not everyone else seems to understand that it is crucial to get our emotions under control first, to obtain a sense of perspective and calm, before we rush and do stupid and dangerous things that will hurt us and others far more than help anyone. And we must not blame an entire religion, any religion, for the evil done by some of its members.
Click to expand...

Problem is, the 30 killed are from the 1% of plots that aren't frustrated by the security services. It's not merely the visible tip of the iceberg that you should worry about.
 
Giordano said:
For some reason this thread leads me to voice what I suspect are unpopular opinions. My uncomfortable concept of the day? The three terror attacks since March in England killed some 30 people, whereas approximately 160 people in the UK died of falling down stairs over the same 3 month period (more than 5 times greater). Transportation accident fatalities were much higher than that. Illnesses far higher still! <snip}
Click to expand...

The comparison is not accurate in that we don't have several thousand security personnel dedicated to stopping people falling down stairs, nor do we spend tens of billions a year combating the wider threat that stairs pose to society. The fact is that if we stood down and removed all anti-terror intelligence, all monitoring and all security checks then we would see dozens of terrorist murders every day and the country would grind to a halt.

Equally, the negative effect of terrorism is not measured by the number of people killed although of course there is a strong link. The purpose of terrorism itself is not to kill people, but to disrupt society. A terrorist threat could in theory be effective without a single person being murdered.

Giordano said:
And we must not blame an entire religion, any religion, for the evil done by some of its members.
Click to expand...

Until we acknowledge its role things will only get worse, and people are now beginning to see this en masse.
 
McHrozni said:
It's the principle of the thing, if your duty extends beyond your working hours (as it does for a police officer) and if your duty sometimes requires the use of a firearm, you should be permitted to carry your issued firearm with you when you aren't working.

Whether this would have any effect on the said small number of incidents or not is immaterial.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Currently police officers would not carry handcuffs, baton, pepper spray, taser, radio off duty. So there is no reason to think that their official weapon would be any different.
 
baron said:
The comparison is not accurate in that we don't have several thousand security personnel dedicated to stopping people falling down stairs, nor do we spend tens of billions a year combating the wider threat that stairs pose to society. The fact is that if we stood down and removed all anti-terror intelligence, all monitoring and all security checks then we would see dozens of terrorist murders every day and the country would grind to a halt.

Equally, the negative effect of terrorism is not measured by the number of people killed although of course there is a strong link. The purpose of terrorism itself is not to kill people, but to disrupt society. A terrorist threat could in theory be effective without a single person being murdered.



Until we acknowledge its role things will only get worse, and people are now beginning to see this en masse.
Click to expand...

Actually we do! They are building inspectors and planning officials who ensure that stairs built are safe, and of course health and safety officers who ensure that they are maintained in good condition (in public areas anyway).
 
Giz said:
Problem is, the 30 killed are from the 1% of plots that aren't frustrated by the security services. It's not merely the visible tip of the iceberg that you should worry about.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but do you have documentation for that number?

And clearly I never never suggested reducing security forces or even not funding them more. Please re read the concerns I did have in my original post. I accept that the 30 dead reflect what we are doing now- I hope security is having the substantial effect you attribute to it. But the question is clearly what it would take to eliminate even these tragic deaths. And I am questioning the majority of the proposals I have heard to do this, both in this thread and in the public discourse. Many of these are what worry me and the ones I detailed in the second paragraph of my post.
 
baron said:
The comparison is not accurate in that we don't have several thousand security personnel dedicated to stopping people falling down stairs, nor do we spend tens of billions a year combating the wider threat that stairs pose to society. The fact is that if we stood down and removed all anti-terror intelligence, all monitoring and all security checks then we would see dozens of terrorist murders every day and the country would grind to a halt.

Equally, the negative effect of terrorism is not measured by the number of people killed although of course there is a strong link. The purpose of terrorism itself is not to kill people, but to disrupt society. A terrorist threat could in theory be effective without a single person being murdered.



Until we acknowledge its role things will only get worse, and people are now beginning to see this en masse.
Click to expand...

I responded to most of what you question in my post to Giz. As to your last line: have you seen many cases where blaming the innocent helps fight the guilty? Do you think alienating and angering billions of people on earth will help win this fight? Do you really think an approach to blame every Muslim for the actions of some is either fair, or a good practical strategy? Just how many people are you interested in having to fight.?

I agree that terrorist want to disrupt society- my post was a plea to not let them do so by turning away from what we value in our society to a darker, more tolitarian, more heartless one. I guess we agree on that, right?
 
dudalb said:
Nonsense.
Police officers do not have extra rights .but they DO have extra reponsiblities that most citizens do not have.
You really have no idea of how police operate..do you?
Click to expand...
Off course police officers have extra responsibility who has argued they dont?
 
ohms said:
I was under the impression that this was indeed the case in England and NI. Does it also apply to Scotland? I believe officers in NI still have the standing permission of their chief officer to carry their sidearms even when off duty.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to be proved wrong in regards to off duty police officers having extra rights when they are off duty. I've had a look (well done a few Google searches) and I can't find anything that supports this for UK wide police. There are some wrinkles with NI, which considering that abortion is illegal and so many other things are legally different over there I would state that is exceptional.
 
Planigale said:
Currently police officers would not carry handcuffs, baton, pepper spray, taser, radio off duty. So there is no reason to think that their official weapon would be any different.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to carry any of those things even when off duty. Some are a bit bulky for everyday clothes (baton, radio) and some are carried by quite a few people as it is (pepper spray). That's the most significant thing I can say about it.

McHrozni
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
the two examples I gave were counters to your specific argument that if your duty sometimes involves using a tool and your duty extends beyond working hours that it justifies carrying the tool during off work hours. Incidentally while there may be an expectation that an off duty officer will offer reasonable assistance during a crime there is no expectation that they will endanger their own life or try to tackle an armed assailant. They may well choose to do so but so might any other civilian put in the same situation.
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to say, but a scalpel is about the equivalent of the bullet in this case. It is absolutely necessary to do the job, but useless without supporting equipment.

Yes, I do think the same should reasonably apply to other relevant professions as well.

I'd certainly reconsider if it could be shown to likely have a positive impact on crime but I imagine the odds are greater that it would have a negative impact if any at all. Either someone would be wrongly shot by an off duty cop or a gun carried by one would be stolen and used against them or someone else or, most likely, it would merely encourage criminals to up the ante in their own choice of weapon if they suspected there was a chance of meeting such a person. And the suspicion would be likely disproportionate to the real likelihood.
Click to expand...

In all likelihood there would be zero negative effect (the number of added guns to society would be tiny) and a tiny to small positive effect (some incidents like the one in OP could be resolved earlier).

McHrozni
 
Giordano said:
For some reason this thread leads me to voice what I suspect are unpopular opinions. My uncomfortable concept of the day? The three terror attacks since March in England killed some 30 people, whereas approximately 160 people in the UK died of falling down stairs over the same 3 month period (more than 5 times greater). Transportation accident fatalities were much higher than that. Illnesses far higher still!

I am not suggesting that accidents and terror attacks are comparable- the emotional impact of people being blown apart by evil murderers verses people hitting their heads on a stair tread is quite different. And I am not dismissing in any way the special suffering of the victims of these dreadful events and of their families- I can’t even begin to imagine how I would feel if I knew any of them personally. But logic, not emotions, not even justifiable emotions, must play the dominant role in defining an effective and appropriate response. Just how much should these events rush us (forgive me because I am speaking broadly, I am not British, although I have a very warm spot in my heart for the British and UK) into lashing out with poorly considered laws that take any from our own freedoms? How much do we wish to turn away from justice and punish innocent people as a result of our horror? How much do we want fear to take away our humanity and willingness to help those in need? Just what type of military actions should we embark on without a clear understanding of what the end game will be and if these actions will actually have a positive effect? Particularly important questions when the terrorists clearly want us to do just these things; they believe it will strength their cause (and history suggests it well might). We don’t seem to be driven to reckless responses by the 160 deaths due to falling down stairs (“Architects who put stairs into houses are to be imprisoned as dangerous killers. All foreign architects will be banned from entering the country and those already here will be targets of our security departments and treated publicly as trash.”). Approximately 30 people died- awful, dreadful, evil! More are likely to do so and we must prevent that as much as possible. But we must not let the emotions from what has and may happen overwhelm us into ignoring the true level of the risk. I know most people here agree, but not everyone else seems to understand that it is crucial to get our emotions under control first, to obtain a sense of perspective and calm, before we rush and do stupid and dangerous things that will hurt us and others far more than help anyone. And we must not blame an entire religion, any religion, for the evil done by some of its members.
Click to expand...

The huge, massive, gigantic difference between accidents and terrorist attacks is that most people will feel they have some level of control over the former and very little over the latter, save never stepping foot out of their front door.

As a law-abiding, honest citizen who contributes to society and has never wanted to hurt anybody else either physically or psychologically, I don't mind if my civil rights need to be tweaked a bit. I don't mind being searched at airports (although I did have to give up a nice Zippo once in San Francisco, shortly after 9/11) and I don't mind CCTV cameras watching me.

If a 6'3" white male living in my city committed a crime, and the police wanted to talk to me about it, I would help them in every way possible. I believe the Muslim community should do the same with regard to these terror attacks (both executed and at the planning stage) and suspect that currently it doesn't to the level it should.

Of course we shouldn't blame an entire religion. But likewise, we shouldn't be afraid of taking the Muslim community to task. They have some work to do and we need to demonstrate that this work isn't optional. This won't happen until there is a general acceptance that these terror attacks are an Islamic problem, which a lot of people seem reluctant to get on board with.
 
Giordano said:
As to your last line: have you seen many cases where blaming the innocent helps fight the guilty?
Click to expand...

Hasn't it been done that way throughout history? Just like when we put the Japanese into internment camps during WW2. We rounded up all of them because it was the only way to make sure we protected ourselves against the spies and other security risks.

I'm not saying it was right; clearly we went too far and without reasonable evidence it was necessary. But it wasn't a new idea, and the Japanese government certainly should've been aware it was a possible -or even likely- consequence of starting a war with us.

We can look back NOW and cry "racism" and "it wasn't fair" but that might be partly because we foiled plans that could've changed history. If the Japanese had won the war, do you think they would've treated the Americans any differently?

Do you think alienating and angering billions of people on earth will help win this fight? Do you really think an approach to blame every Muslim for the actions of some is either fair, or a good practical strategy? Just how many people are you interested in having to fight.?
Click to expand...

Seems the terrorists believe alienating and angering billions of people on Earth will help them win the fight; so I have a hard time finding sympathy for them if others respond in kind.

I agree that terrorist want to disrupt society- my post was a plea to not let them do so by turning away from what we value in our society to a darker, more tolitarian, more heartless one. I guess we agree on that, right?
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think Islamic terrorists want to disrupt society.

I think they want every single man, woman, and child who is not Islamic to die. Period. I do not believe there is any compromise they will accept.
 
Giordano said:
I understand your point but do you have documentation for that number?

And clearly I never never suggested reducing security forces or even not funding them more. Please re read the concerns I did have in my original post. I accept that the 30 dead reflect what we are doing now- I hope security is having the substantial effect you attribute to it. But the question is clearly what it would take to eliminate even these tragic deaths. And I am questioning the majority of the proposals I have heard to do this, both in this thread and in the public discourse. Many of these are what worry me and the ones I detailed in the second paragraph of my post.
Click to expand...

In the face of a terrorist attack or similar there is no bad idea that people won't propose to make sure it never happens again. In some cases this is a natural fear reaction and a need to do something to be safe in others it's just an excuse to promote their own preconceived notions. Neither of these is a sound basis for policy decisions.

But yes you are right the actual effect of terrorism in terms of deaths isn't that great. Psychologically the threat is greatly exaggerated and the media don't help.

Of course that's not to say that you let your guard down but we should also remember that the terrorist threat in Europe is lower now than it was in the 80s.
 
Reeco said:
Of course we shouldn't blame an entire religion. But likewise, we shouldn't be afraid of taking the Muslim community to task. They have some work to do and we need to demonstrate that this work isn't optional. This won't happen until there is a general acceptance that these terror attacks are an Islamic problem, which a lot of people seem reluctant to get on board with.
Click to expand...

I agree with the principle, but I struggle to find an appropriate approach of how to start doing this. Do you have an idea how to approach?

McHrozni
 
This won't happen until there is a general acceptance that these terror attacks are an Islamic problem, which a lot of people seem reluctant to get on board with.
Click to expand...

I think the first question is: Do the Islamic peoples see them as a problem?

I think the whole of non-Islamic society is at war with Islam. Further, I believe the entire Islamic society is at war with everyone else.

I agree with the principle, but I struggle to find an appropriate approach of how to start doing this. Do you have an idea how to approach?
Click to expand...

1) Every single person on the planet who is not Islamic converts immediately.
or
2) Every single person who is Islamic renounces such immediately and permanently.

Otherwise, every time a "bad apple" is removed, the resulting void is filled with another bad apple from within the larger ranks.

Therefore, the war will wage in one color or the other 'til one side has been utterly destroyed.

There is no "live and let live" option because Islamic laws do not allow it.
 
Reeco said:
and suspect that currently it doesn't to the level it should.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough but I would suggest that the next stage from 'suspect' is 'find out if that is really the case' then if so 'find a reasonable solution that will solve the problem without causing more and possibly worse ones' rather than 'demand action'.

Too many people jump right to the end of the logic line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom