• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

NoahFence said:
Can't pick out the fallacy. Is that poisoning the well, or being a *********** moron?
Click to expand...

You will of course be apologising when the facts that this is an Islamic terror attack emerge. Of course you won't, you only apologise for terrorists.
 
It is silly to conflate separatist movements and Christian groups from Europe with Islamic terror. Those were internally generated problems involving natives. No society is perfect, and you do your best to deal with those internal issues.

Those groups also tended to have clear political goals and generally used much more discretion in their choices of targets.

On the other hand, you've got Islam which is:

1.) Alien to Europe and alien in a much more significant way than Christianity was because it is not only an outsider ideology, it is an outsider ideology coming in on the backs of a huge number of actual outsiders. Christianity came in and was adopted by Europeans, big difference.

2.) Deliberately targeting the softest targets, going after defenseless, unsuspecting civilians and in many cases even women and children. Inflicting gruesome torture on victims like removing eyes and genitalia of victims in the Bataclan theater. Slitting throats of people on London bridge yesterday. I'm no expert on the Basque stuff but my understanding is that the IRA typically would target English police & military, or politicians, stuff like that. Not saying that's right, but they had a clear political agenda and weren't trying to take over England or deliberately kill women and children, though I do understand that sometimes their target choices were awful.

3.) Other than conquest of Europe and the world, it's hard to argue that the Islamic terrorists have a clear political agenda. Many people try to make it seem equivalent to the IRA or something by saying "oh they're just reacting to interventions in the middle east" but his doesn't pass the sniff test because of how much violence they do in countries like Sweden, how much internal violence directed at people like Egyptian Christians and Hindus in India, etc. they are known for... and the fact that our meddling in their nations is a REACTION to them being like that, not the cause of it. Again... their agenda is conquest, not redress of grievance. I expect Dublin to have a major Islamic terror attack in the next couple of years. What will be the justification for that? It will simply be a result of them having Muslims there. Simple.

Trying to talk about internal European problems as a way to be dismissive of this issue would be like me saying "well, my younger brother used to sometimes drink too much and break things in the house and take a swing at me from time to time, so why should I stop permitting one new violent crack addict stranger with a felony rap seet per week to move in from off the street?"

For starters, your brother is your brother. You don't get to choose who your family are, and to a certain extent you simply have to deal with their issues. Nothing's forcing you to let crack addict felons you don't know move in off the street. Secondly, their issues are far worse than your alcoholic brother's are and you're letting more of them in all the time.

I see people in this thread talking about what we do to stop this. No matter what your perspective is, or how abhorrent you find my views on how to stop this (I essentially wouldn't rule ANYTHING out to stop it, let your imagination go wild.) we should all at least be able to agree that step 1 is to STOP LETTING MORE MUSLIMS IN.
 
Bogative said:
Not for this attack, not yet. My comment was based on experience from previous attacks in which terrorists yelled allah akbar before commencing their jihad and the press went on to question their motive. It's still early, though. I would love to be proven wrong this time.
Click to expand...


BBC security correspondent Frank Gardener (check him out if you are not familiar with him ... he's usually an impeccable source) was just saying on BBC radio that witnesses did say they heard the attackers shouting Allah Akbar or something similar.

That would not be a surprise of course, since it seems to be true in most if not all the vast number of Islamic attacks that have occurred across Europe and elsewhere … so in this present case it's almost just a technical point seeming to confirm the Islamic fundamentalist ideology of the attackers.
 
ddt said:
In conclusion, "isn't on the cards" is too facile a statement. Even a modest reporting rate of 30% will result in plenty of reports to the police.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardener (check him out if you are not familiar with him ... he's usually an impeccable source) was just saying on BBC radio that witnesses did say they heard the attackers shouting Allah Akbar or something similar.
Click to expand...

Frank Gardener is the best reporter the BBC has and yet is rarely on TV. Whether that's his choice or because he's not afraid of stating uncomfortable facts I'm not sure. Not only that he's a great example of resilience in the face of these scum bags. Six bullets at close range and before you know it he's up and back doing the exact same job.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I see people in this thread talking about what we do to stop this. No matter what your perspective is, or how abhorrent you find my views on how to stop this (I essentially wouldn't rule ANYTHING out to stop it, let your imagination go wild.) we should all at least be able to agree that step 1 is to STOP LETTING MORE MUSLIMS IN.
Click to expand...

No. This is wrong. We need them. We've always needed immigrants and always will.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
 
Hard to know how to prevent such attacks in future, by that I mean the technique they are using not their motivations. We can't have crash barriers on all public streets and roads. Tragically once one of these attacks was successful the technique would be copied.
 
Darat said:
Hard to know how to prevent such attacks in future, by that I mean the technique they are using not their motivations. We can't have crash barriers on all public streets and roads. Tragically once one of these attacks was successful the technique would be copied.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that step 1 in reducing the number of future attacks is halting Muslim immigration?

These jihadists come exclusively from that community, whether in generation 1 or later. The larger that community is, the more it will produce.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Would you agree that step 1 in reducing the number of future attacks is halting Muslim immigration?

These jihadists come exclusively from that community, whether in generation 1 or later. The larger that community is, the more it will produce.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to be responding to my post which was about how to guard against a specific technique being used by cowardly terrorists.
 
Darat said:
Hard to know how to prevent such attacks in future, by that I mean the technique they are using not their motivations. We can't have crash barriers on all public streets and roads. Tragically once one of these attacks was successful the technique would be copied.
Click to expand...

You can't prevent the actual attacks. We should count ourselves lucky that these terrorists are so stupid they don't realise that targeting communities outside of the best defended cities in the world would permit a significantly increased number of causalities.
 
Darat said:
You don't seem to be responding to my post which was about how to guard against a specific technique being used by cowardly terrorists.
Click to expand...

Until relatively recently there were fences between the path and roadway to stop people just crossing the road. I'm not sure how much they would have acted to slow down the van though? I did think it was strange they removed them although more as it's a dangerous road to cross and you would think you'd want to discourage that
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Would you agree that step 1 in reducing the number of future attacks is halting Muslim immigration?
Click to expand...

From some regions, yes, but certainly not a blanket ban. I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say no Indian Muslim has committed any act of terrorism in the UK or the US, or indeed in Europe in recent years. That's not to say all immigrants, regardless of ethnicity and religion, should not be vetted to a very high level.
 
Mid said:
Well that's about 5 minutes walk from my work and Vauxhalls not that far from my house.

I'm surprised the van came from the City side of London Bridge though as they likely drove some distance to get that route and quite frankly although Borough's busy they must have passed more crowded areas on their way there.
Click to expand...


The City's comparatively quiet at weekends.
 
baron said:
From some regions, yes, but certainly not a blanket ban. I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say no Indian Muslim has committed any act of terrorism in the UK or the US, or indeed in Europe in recent years. That's not to say all immigrants, regardless of ethnicity and religion, should not be vetted to a very high level.
Click to expand...

I question the basic assumption that there should be any immigration at all, and I don't like the starting point of "everyone has a right to come until a really good reason is provided why they shouldn't" and I think we should flip that around, at a minimum.

But at least you are talking some semblance of sense about excluding some of the more problematic places.

Darat said:
You don't seem to be responding to my post which was about how to guard against a specific technique being used by cowardly terrorists.
Click to expand...

You cannot really guard against most of these techniques. Even all the steps put in place to prevent anther 9/11 could probably be skirted around by another dedicated group like the 19 on that day.

Preventing truck and knife attacks like this? Can't be done. Unless you want to invent neural inhibitors and forcibly install them in everyone's brains?

That's why the response I gave is the only response to give. Reduce (ideally to zero) the number of potential jihadists in your society. That's how you prevent these attacks.

Can your own people convert to Islam, or just be homicidally crazy? Sure... but conversion of your native populace becomes less and less likely the fewer Muslims are present. You could also simply outlaw Islam, which I'd be in favor of.

Never going to eliminate the occasional homicidal loon who does stuff like this for personal reasons, but they don't represent an existential threat to our societies. Islam does.
 
Mojo said:
The City's comparatively quiet at weekends.
Click to expand...

True. I was thinking that the van had come from the west over Vauxhall bridge but it appears to have come from Barking area if the police raids are an indication, so Borough area would be one of the first busy central London areas they could reach.
 
baron said:
You can't prevent the actual attacks. We should count ourselves lucky that these terrorists are so stupid they don't realise that targeting communities outside of the best defended cities in the world would permit a significantly increased number of causalities.
Click to expand...
We can reduce many of the techniques terrorists can actually use, for example look at the removal of public waste bins in town centres (and replacement with non metal bins) during the height of the Irish terrorism in the mainland. That was a simple change that did help prevent one technique being used. With the vehicle attacks aimed at the general public the "simple" solution is to fence in all roads which obviously can't be done except in a few limited places.
 
Mid said:
Until relatively recently there were fences between the path and roadway to stop people just crossing the road. I'm not sure how much they would have acted to slow down the van though? I did think it was strange they removed them although more as it's a dangerous road to cross and you would think you'd want to discourage that
Click to expand...
Lots of research has shown that too much visible "safety" precautions can in fact make roads and pavements more dangerous. But perhaps we are going to have to revise our safety v risk assessments in light of this type of terrorist attack.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Never going to eliminate the occasional homicidal loon who does stuff like this for personal reasons, but they don't represent an existential threat to our societies. Islam does.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what is happening with Jihadists in the mix. They are "homicidal loons." And no, they do not represent an existential threat, despite all the fear-mongering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom