Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

You are wrong about what you think. What next?

 

[DragonLady]

You are wrong about what you think. What next?

Okay.

Show me.

 

[Darat]

Okay.

Show me.

It's your claim, your burden.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Okay.

Show me.

There's a Muslim guy lives down the road from me. He's not at war with anyone. I don't know any Muslim personally who is at war with non-Muslim society. I have seen some on TV though.

I'm non-Muslim and I'm not at war with anyone either. I don't know anyone personally who is at war with Islam. I have seen some on TV though.

So your contention that the entirety of those two societies (as if there is even such things) are at war with each other is ridiculous on the face of it.

Even President Trump clearly agrees since he just visited Saudi Arabia and was very friendly with them and calls them an ally. Saudi Arabia is about as close to 'Muslim society' (as I think you mean it) as you are going to get.

So no, your contention is clearly wrong. So what next?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And quite frankly the idea that the Pakistani postman in Nottingham, the multi-billionaire oil sheikh in Saudi, a Malaysian research scientist and an Afghan child trying to stay alive in a warzone are all part of one massive 'Muslim Society' is laughable.

 

[McHrozni]

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.

Um yeah. Such an similar solutions are easy enough to find. My question was how do you accomplish that? By asking people if they're Muslim at census and give them the option to renounce the faith or be killed at the spot if they answer yes?

That's not bound to end well. It's also against the various constitutions, laws and an affront to established norms of society.

McHrozni

 

[baron]

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?

Who is blaming the innocent? Surely we've got beyond this conflation of Muslims and Islam. Identifying Islam as the primary factor and the source of much of this terrorism, violence, intolerance and fascism is not, in itself, blaming anybody. Do we wring our hands with worry that we will victimise the millions of peaceful, law-abiding right-wingers in this country when we criticise the white nationalist mentality and identify it as unwanted?

Do you think alienating and angering billions of people on earth will help win this fight?

And that attitude is why we're in the state we're in. We refuse to apply the laws and cultural mores that everybody else abides by to one specific set of people. "Oh, we mustn't enforce our progressive values and laws in our own country because it might offend the Muslims." That's why we have people blowing themselves up at concerts, that's why we have tens of thousands of girls raped over a period of 30 years and literally nothing is done to stop it. If 'billions' of Muslims are angered by our liberal society then that's their problem, and what's more it says a lot about their real attitudes.

Do you really think an approach to blame every Muslim for the actions of some is either fair, or a good practical strategy?

No.

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?

At this stage, not really. Initially that would have been a fine sentiment we could both agree with. When Islam first started taking hold in this country what we should have done is welcome it, and welcome Muslims, but at the same time make it clear that followers of the religion would be granted no special status. Sexism, homophobia, racism, discrimination, threats and violence would be met with exactly the same sanctions as if they'd been perpetrated by any other member of society, whether they happened on the street, in a mosque, in a park or on social media. That did not happen and now the UK is a safe space for Islamic maniacs, hate preachers and terrorists. A disease may initially be prevented by exercise and good diet, but if these are not followed and the sickness takes hold then it's time to bring out the knife. Metaphorically speaking, before certain posters start with the straw men.

 

[DragonLady]

And quite frankly the idea that the Pakistani postman in Nottingham, the multi-billionaire oil sheikh in Saudi, a Malaysian research scientist and an Afghan child trying to stay alive in a warzone are all part of one massive 'Muslim Society' is laughable.

Okay; you're right. Bad wording on my part.

My beliefs on this matter are 1) rather recent -I've been pretty happy accepting the idea these terrorist acts are the domain of a few; a radical subset of a larger group and 2) based somewhat on my own evangelical Christian background.

The church I grew up in always made it very clear that anyone who wasn't actively recruiting new members, or wasn't willing to sever ties with anyone who didn't believe was "lukewarm" and therefore not a true Christian.

I'm beginning to believe that Islamic beliefs are the same way. That a true believer must not compromise, must not accept any other belief system, must not tolerate anyone who does. If so, then every member would be under some [probably varying] pressure to participate in a worldwide campaign to either convert or destroy. Those individuals who choose not to play, are then seen as allowing wickedness.*

While I have spent some time these last few days reading up on the subject, it's difficult to find information I consider unbiased one way or the other. I'd love to be shown I'm wrong -my currently dimming view isn't much fun, to be honest.

But I've been hearing the "it's just a few" argument since 9/11, while simultaneously watching these attacks continue. Obviously "the few" just keeps getting replenished, and the source has to be "the many".

Bottom line: I'm sick of these attacks, but I don't think they will stop until the root of the problem is identified; and I suspect that root to be a belief that akin to the "Kill him to save him" trope of some Christian sects.*

*Which may also help explain why none of these terrorists seem to care how many fellow Islamists or Muslims are injured or killed in these attacks. If they tolerate outside beliefs, they are not being true to their own.



{{I'm also sick of people being injured by falling down stairs, and injuries/deaths caused by automobile accidents, but those are subjects for other threads, and neither is the result of willful acts by someone bent on hurting any random person that happens to be in their paths.}}

 

[DragonLady]

Um yeah. Such an similar solutions are easy enough to find. My question was how do you accomplish that? By asking people if they're Muslim at census and give them the option to renounce the faith or be killed at the spot if they answer yes?

No; I don't see anything to be gained by trying to force someone to renounce their faith. Nor do I see anything to be gained from killing people who have not committed any crime (and even then I'm not a big fan of the death penalty).

 

[McHrozni]

No; I don't see anything to be gained by trying to force someone to renounce their faith. Nor do I see anything to be gained from killing people who have not committed any crime (and even then I'm not a big fan of the death penalty).

'kay

So how would you do it, then?

McHrozni

 

[Vixen]

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.

That's all very nice and tree-huggy. That might be apposite for the local parish committee over tea and biscuits, but to keep pretending the terrorist acts in Europe recenty 'are just random accidents' will make the situation worse, not better.

The longer the jihadists are depicted as cartoon character mullahs, the more frequent and extreme they will get.

For goodness sake, smell the coffee, the terrorists have declared war on us. Their killings were nothing personal. They see themselves as fighting for a cause.

If it is a war - and I have no doubt it is - then you have to fight back.

All's fair in love and war.

Imagine if the peasants rose up, Watt Tyler-style, we'd soon have the army on the streets gunning them down.

 

[Vixen]

And May starts to use the fear to remove human rights:

Theresa May: Human rights laws could change for terror fight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40181444

This has been a goal of hers and the as she described them the "nasty party" for a long time.

She's already taken away human rights - pension rights, employment rights, inheritance rights for dementia sufferer descendants, disability rights, and it has been done by stealth.

 

[IanS]

More breaking news (BBC) – the death toll has just risen to 8, after a the body of a French man was recovered from the river Thames.

Eye witnesses at the time, all of whom have proved extremely accurate in what they said just minutes after the attack, reported that when the van was driven into groups of pedestrians on the bridge, one man was seen to be hit and thrown over the side of the bridge into the water by the impact.

 

[Vixen]

More breaking news (BBC) – the death toll has just risen to 8, after a the body of a French man was recovered from the river Thames.

Eye witnesses at the time, all of whom have proved extremely accurate in what they said just minutes after the attack, reported that when the van was driven into groups of pedestrians on the bridge, one man was seen to be hit and thrown over the side of the bridge into the water by the impact.

All desperately sad.

 

[baron]

That's all very nice and tree-huggy. That might be apposite for the local parish committee over tea and biscuits, but to keep pretending the terrorist acts in Europe recenty 'are just random accidents' will make the situation worse, not better.

The longer the jihadists are depicted as cartoon character mullahs, the more frequent and extreme they will get.

For goodness sake, smell the coffee, the terrorists have declared war on us. Their killings were nothing personal. They see themselves as fighting for a cause.

If it is a war - and I have no doubt it is - then you have to fight back.

All's fair in love and war.

Imagine if the peasants rose up, Watt Tyler-style, we'd soon have the army on the streets gunning them down.

How can you reconcile this post with your repeated defence of Corbyn's record on terrorism?

 

[lionking]

More breaking news (BBC) – the death toll has just risen to 8, after a the body of a French man was recovered from the river Thames.

Eye witnesses at the time, all of whom have proved extremely accurate in what they said just minutes after the attack, reported that when the van was driven into groups of pedestrians on the bridge, one man was seen to be hit and thrown over the side of the bridge into the water by the impact.

Also two Australians dead. Aussies are prolific travellers, but a quarter of all dead....

 

[McHrozni]

Also two Australians dead. Aussies are prolific travellers, but a quarter of all dead....

They most likely traveled together. How many Aussies were injured?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

If they were 'allowed' to carry them I'm not sure how many would. At some level this is going to be noticeable (e.g. carrying your baton or radio) and I think most police officers would not want to do it. There was a bit of a kerfuffle when it was proposed that police should wear their uniform when travelling to and from work for example and I think this would likely see the same level of pushback.

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.

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

I think zero effect quite likely but I see a bigger and more probable potential downside than I do upside so I don't see that there is any point in taking the risk for the 1 in a several million chance that an armed off duty police officer happens to be in the same place as an armed nutjob.

Okay; you're right. Bad wording on my part.

My beliefs on this matter are 1) rather recent -I've been pretty happy accepting the idea these terrorist acts are the domain of a few; a radical subset of a larger group and 2) based somewhat on my own evangelical Christian background.

The church I grew up in always made it very clear that anyone who wasn't actively recruiting new members, or wasn't willing to sever ties with anyone who didn't believe was "lukewarm" and therefore not a true Christian.

I'm beginning to believe that Islamic beliefs are the same way.

Islamic beliefs are just as broad and varied as Christian beliefs or any other beliefs. Some Muslims are very relaxed, broadminded, socially and politically progressive and all-round good eggs. Some are narrow minded bigots with some seriously horrible views.

I don't think I have ever met any of the latter, but I have certainly met plenty of the former.

That a true believer must not compromise, must not accept any other belief system, must not tolerate anyone who does. If so, then every member would be under some [probably varying] pressure to participate in a worldwide campaign to either convert or destroy. Those individuals who choose not to play, are then seen as allowing wickedness.*

While I have spent some time these last few days reading up on the subject, it's difficult to find information I consider unbiased one way or the other. I'd love to be shown I'm wrong -my currently dimming view isn't much fun, to be honest.

Well it's hard to find 'unbiased' opinions depending on what you mean by unbiased and I'm not sure what data could be shown to convince you. How many gay Muslims for example would be evidence that Islam is not one monolithic block of belief and Muslims are not all one big mass of adherents to a narrow ideology?

Part of my view is informed by spending time with Muslims, mixing with them in the workplace and socially, and living beside them in my community. From personal experience I would say the Muslims I have met are much more likely to be 'good easy going people' than the white folks but I don't pretend that's in any way representative or scientific.

Another way I look at it is to consider what would the world actually look like if all or a majority or even a decent sized minority of Muslims actually believed they were at war with non-Muslims and that killing us was the right thing to do. It would be a hell of a lot different to what it looks like now that's for sure.

But I've been hearing the "it's just a few" argument since 9/11, while simultaneously watching these attacks continue. Obviously "the few" just keeps getting replenished, and the source has to be "the many".

You could say the same about any murder. It's only a few people who are murderers but it continues to happen. Therefore the few murderers must be being replenished by the many. What does that tell us about whether the many think murder is OK?

Bottom line: I'm sick of these attacks, but I don't think they will stop until the root of the problem is identified; and I suspect that root to be a belief that akin to the "Kill him to save him" trope of some Christian sects.*

*Which may also help explain why none of these terrorists seem to care how many fellow Islamists or Muslims are injured or killed in these attacks. If they tolerate outside beliefs, they are not being true to their own.

I think we are all sick of these attacks. I think you have misidentified the root of the problem. I don't even think there might be ONE root of the problem I think it's become a complex mish-mash of influencers and drivers which definitely includes religious teachings but also includes various social and political factors.

Turn it on it's head as well and consider that we in the West are continuing to kill many more Muslims through our attacks on them and other actions (if that's how you want to define the 'sides') than they are killing of us through their attacks. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of those military actions (put that debate to one side) its worth bearing that in mind and reflecting on it.

It's also worth remembering that many more people were being killed by terrorists in Europe during the 80s when the terrorists were almost all 'homegrown' Europeans and nobody had ever heard the word Jihadi. I don't think the Quran has changed much in the last 30 years so I think there must be more to it than that.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Sure, it's nice of Ariane to drop by, but were all the cameras and makeup department necessary?

I'll bet Gary Barlow also visited but kept it private.

I guess you could say that anything involving a celebrity is done for publicity, hell, Live Aid was one big PR stunt in that regard, but I don't see any issues with this kind of thing if it has an added benefit of helping those affected, even if it just brightens up their day to see their favourite star in person. Photographers are obviously going to want to get pictures of her with the victims.

I doubt Gary Barlow does anything privately, he seems as much of a publicity whore as the next celeb.

 

[Reeco]

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 is the tough part obviously.

The best I've been able to come up with is a data-finding and registration process, resulting in a database (MuslimNet for the rest of this post) that is then kept current by a combination of work by the authorities and the Muslim communities themselves . There are issues no doubt, and would beg the question 'why not all religions?' but that's where I think we (as in the UK) need to be resolute and accept that it will be impossible to tackle this problem without treading some uncomfortable ground.

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through, but basically Muslim communities would be identified and recorded on MuslimNet as entities. They would elect a leader or team of leaders that would be responsible for keeping their house in order on the database via a web portal interface, online forms and other tools. Mosques would also be registered as entities, as would the users of those Mosques. Communities and mosques could be scored (activities of persons of interest, low registration rates, missing data) and actions triggered by a high score. High scoring communities would therefore find themselves dealing with the authorities more regularly, which would hopefully make them get their act together.

It seems like a whole load of red tape, but this wouldn't be a 'make life difficult for Muslims' thing. The idea is to make community leaders accountable and responsible for helping the authorities weed out their radicalised, or potentially radicalised members. As I said before, I suspect this accountability and responsibility isn't acknowledged to the extent it needs to be, once the premise that Islam is at the heart of the problem is acknowledged. MuslimNet would force that acknowledgement, which isn't ideal - but this is the situation we are in.