Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Vixen]

Theresa May has come out with half-baked clichés. 'Enough is enough' is so overused, it means absolutely nothing and lacks any passion at all. Even Yogi Bear used that phrase. 'Enough is enough!" It's almost a comic parody.

 

[baron]

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 .

Re the latter - it really couldn't. I'll tell you - and advise you to do your own research if you want the evidence - that if the authorities clamped down on Islamic extremists like they have with Robinson - for doing little else but speaking out about extremist Islam - we wouldn't have these repeated terrorist incidents and we would have no problem with extremism in this country. That said, I'm not sure whether I'd support that level of fascist authoritarianism against even terrorism suspects.

As for his links to racists - yes, I consider this a problem but not as you suggest. He started the EDL with good intentions and it was a worthy cause. Then it was infiltrated by racist individuals and groups but Robinson persevered with it, which IMO was the wrong thing to do, and he lost control. I also think he's totally wrong to associate with scum such as the leaders of Britain First, and whilst he says he only shares their views on extremist Islam I'm strongly against any link with them whatsoever.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

This. It's really a very simple strategy:

1) Have an expendable pawn raise a ruckus. Stabbing, suicide bombing, whatever gets in the news.
2) Let the racist knuckleheads use it as an excuse to persecute Muslims in general.
3) Recruit more expendable pawns from the friends and family of those affected.

Doubling down on 2) might feel good while we're stroking our ignorance, but in the long run it's the least productive thing we can do.

 

[marplots]

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.

Well, I don't want to get stuck defending a position I don't hold (unusual for me, I know), but I should point out "apologetics" seems like the wrong word. I doubt that many here would try and uphold the actual beliefs of Islam - things like no pork Tuesdays, Mohammed being the last/best/PUBAH prophet or whatever other nonsense Muslims hold dear.

In most of these threads it seems a simple push-back against lumping a huge chunk of humanity with those we hate and fear. And this, unjustly. It has the taint of racism.

 

[Vixen]

There's a person who dislikes me on this forum and always likes to respond to me with "tick tock." (he uses it in reference to the supposedly impending irrelevance of people like me as we all merge into one indistinguishable mass.)

I'm culturally appropriating it.

Tick tock.

How many of these do people really believe Europeans will tolerate before the iron fist comes down? I personally think the iron fist of xenophobic overreaction is long overdue and sorely needed. I have no doubt it will arrive eventually though.

The guy lying on the ground and the guy being arrested look 'European' to me.

 

[baron]

This. It's really a very simple strategy:

1) Have an expendable pawn raise a ruckus. Stabbing, suicide bombing, whatever gets in the news.
2) Let the racist knuckleheads use it as an excuse to persecute Muslims in general.
3) Recruit more expendable pawns from the friends and family of those affected.

What you don't explain is how this 'persecution' (for which I've seen no evidence, BTW) from a minority of UK citizens translates into blowing up a concert hall full of school children.

I look back through history right up to the present day and I see Jews persecuted incalculably more than Muslims have ever been in the West, yet not murdering Westerners in their hundreds at every opportunity. And toning down on the persecution level you can apply that last sentence to any number of non-Islamic minorities in the UK and Europe.

You've hit the nail on the head, albeit without knowing it. Taken as an average, Muslims have an extremely low tolerance bar and pushing them over this, either the reality or the perception, will result in immediate and fatal results.

 

[Vixen]

We endured decades of terrorist attacks by christians. It didn't lead to repression of christianity.

Christians don't wear suicide vests or attack young tourists and civilians with knives and vans.

 

[baron]

Well, I don't want to get stuck defending a position I don't hold (unusual for me, I know), but I should point out "apologetics" seems like the wrong word. I doubt that many here would try and uphold the actual beliefs of Islam - things like no pork Tuesdays, Mohammed being the last/best/PUBAH prophet or whatever other nonsense Muslims hold dear.

Careful - I don't eat pork (but for logical reasons...)

 

[Vixen]

My condolence to the family of those hit.



IRA
Red army faction (bader band for example)
Basque liberation front
Free corse
Etc...

Most people here forget or are not aware that terrorism has a long history in EU.

Islam has only the top spot because in the last 2 decades the other groups slowed down or disbanded.

But you know what i find funny ? The first reaction of some was not for the victims, but rather a semi jubilant "it is islam".

These were nothing to do with religion.

It is to do with Islam as the jihadists believe themselves to be simply obeying the Qu'ran. They are ordered to kill infidels.

The terrorists at London Bridge and Borough market were witnessed by several, stabbing people, cutting their throats saying, 'This is for Allah'.


Of course the vast majority of Muslims are kind decent peace-loving people, just like most of the rest of us, but it is undeniable the terrorists get their hate ideology from the Qu'ran.

 

[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?

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.

I think that the vast majority of immigrants of all religions do integrate into our society. But there will always be runts in any pack regardless of religion and culture that feel the need to jump on the bandwagon or indulge in criminal activity of their choice.

If the survey you quoted that only one in three British Muslims would tip off the police is correct then that is a problem that has to be addressed urgently.

And from the BBC

"A prominent Muslim lawyer has called UK authorities "lazy" in their efforts to communicate with community leaders and tackle extremism.

Nazir Afzal, who is the former chief crown prosecutor, told BBC Radio 5's Pienaar's Politics that the government must do more, especially when it comes to reaching out to young Muslim women, which he believes will help connect with these groups.

"We've got to turn away those people who are [community leaders] for all sorts of wrong reasons - ego, kudos, just because they're there in the right place," he said.

"I think the state and the authorities are lazy here - they go to the usual suspects.

"They should be talking to young people, young women invariably, in order to get them to understand and learn from them what it is that needs to be done, rather than simply impose it."

 

[Vixen]

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.

Please stop using tragedies like this to spread your own ideology of hate.

 

[Vixen]

Wasn't really talking about the U.S., but since you mentioned it... I will point out that the United States has a long and rich history of xenophobic, overtly racist exclusionary immigration policies. If we had not, the country would've gone to pot much sooner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States

Laws excluding any non-white from citizenship, laws precluding Amerindians and blacks from citizenship and voting, laws specifically excluding the Chinese... long moratoriums on any immigration whatsoever...

I'd say all of that and the clearly expressed intent of the founders themselves sort of trumps a silly poem by a self-interested (((poet))) which was added onto that statue's base years after the statue was installed. The poem was not an intended component of the statue.

Of course when you let in outside groups they immediately advocate that you let in more of their group and in some cases they advocate you let in everyone so they don't stick out like a sore thumb, and maybe they're culturally more comfortable with a hodge-podge than the founding stock are.

Anyway, this is off track. The important point here is that it is flat out absurd to act like excluding Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. is counter to the nature of the nation. It is VERY much in line with what America is and always has been. Your mindset is the recent (and soon to fizzle out) aberration here.

Same goes for Europe. Europeans took it for granted until very recently that they shouldn't be permitting a bunch of third world hordes to come in in unlimited quantities because "oh our home countries are awful" yes... they are and always have been awful, because they aren't capable of anything more. It's not a justification for dragging the first world down to that level. It's not a justification for Eurabia.

All nonwhite nations, including where these people come from, carefully guard their own demographics and religious/cultural majority. Only whites are expected to cheer on their own dispossession and vigorously support losing control of the societies their ancestors explicitly built FOR THEM ALONE.

Now I see where you are coming from. You are yet another US citizen with hopelessly romantic ideas about Europe.

It's delusional.

 

[uke2se]

If the survey you quoted that only one in three British Muslims would tip off the police is correct then that is a problem that has to be addressed urgently.

Apparently, in the control group slightly fewer people would do it, so it's not really a Muslim problem.

 

[Giordano]

Christians don't wear suicide vests or attack young tourists and civilians with knives and vans.

Are you making a distinction in the technology by which Christians kill their opponents, or claiming that mainstream Christians don't launch attacks knowing that children will be "inadvertently" killed? You may wish to consider how many times air raids were ordered against private homes in Afganistan by the US and its allies seeking to kill someone high in the taliban, for example, knowing that children in the house would be killed too.

But of course we all can pat ourselves on the back by saying that the goal wasn't to kill children. Somehow that doesn't completely make it okay for me. We knew it would happen and decided it was okay given our bigger goal of fighting the taliban. And I can't help wonder if the taliban/ISIS doesn't use the same rationalization.

In any case there are radical terrorist groups who consider themselves Christian and who have intentionally killed innocent people even recently.

 

[Vixen]

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.

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.

 

[ctamblyn]

...
If the survey you quoted that only one in three British Muslims would tip off the police is correct then that is a problem that has to be addressed urgently.

Here's the relevant table from the ICM poll:

If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you…
Base: All respondents (Muslims survey: 1,081; Control group survey: 1,008)

-|Muslims survey %|Control group survey %
Talk to the person directly about it to dissuade them|46|29
Look for help|37|16
Report it to the police|34|30
Let the person deal with it themselves – I wouldn’t get involved|9|3
I don’t think someone close to me would get involved with people who support terrorism|27|57
Don’t know|10|*

Source:
https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/icm-muslims-survey-for-channel-4/

Given (AIUI at least) that the control group was drawn from the UK population without regard to ethnicity, religion etc., the problem of unwillingness to report does not seem to be an issue with Islamic communities specifically.

ETA: Ninja'd by uke2se, oops.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

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

Again, not something I have suggested or advocated. Why does persuading Muslims already in the UK to integrate/become less insular have to be achieved by banning more Muslims from entering the country? I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

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

Why would banning more Muslims from entering the country cast suspicion on Muslims who already live here? Perhaps those Muslims who feel they are under suspicion of some sort could perhaps show that they have nothing to hide, if that's how they feel? If they are integrated into British society, why would they feel like they are under suspicion?

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.

No. This isn't political terrorism, or terrorism with any kind of specific agenda - this is killing innocent people out of pure hatred, based on interpretation of religious teachings; no values died last night - actual people did. I'm not advocating Draconian measures to prevent terrorism - just more robust ones, and less worrying about offending the delicate sensibilities of sympathisers and religious types.

 

[Vixen]

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.



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.

If you look at your history, you will realise that like the rest of the world all over, Europe (or, more accurately to name a continent, Eurasia) has been made up of dozens of tribes, all constantly at war with each other (cf Marco Polo's travels). The inhabitants of the United Kingdom, for example has been enlarged by incursions of marauding saxons, Danes, normans, romans, all sorts of barbarians.

The idea that a country 'belongs' to one group of people is a very recent one.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think that the vast majority of immigrants of all religions do integrate into our society. But there will always be runts in any pack regardless of religion and culture that feel the need to jump on the bandwagon or indulge in criminal activity of their choice.

If the survey you quoted that only one in three British Muslims would tip off the police is correct then that is a problem that has to be addressed urgently.

And from the BBC

"A prominent Muslim lawyer has called UK authorities "lazy" in their efforts to communicate with community leaders and tackle extremism.

Nazir Afzal, who is the former chief crown prosecutor, told BBC Radio 5's Pienaar's Politics that the government must do more, especially when it comes to reaching out to young Muslim women, which he believes will help connect with these groups.

"We've got to turn away those people who are [community leaders] for all sorts of wrong reasons - ego, kudos, just because they're there in the right place," he said.

"I think the state and the authorities are lazy here - they go to the usual suspects.

"They should be talking to young people, young women invariably, in order to get them to understand and learn from them what it is that needs to be done, rather than simply impose it."

Perhaps the government COULD do more, but isn't it effectively just as lazy to say "Yeah, there's a problem, but the government haven't come to us to speak about it, so - whatever.."?

Personally speaking, if I was associated with a small group of people that were causing ME problems by association, I wouldn't sit on my ass and wait for someone else to come and speak to me about it...

 

[David RP]

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.

Worth noting that this attack and the previous one both involved driving at speed across bridges. Approaching from any other direction in London stop start traffic the vehicles would more likely have been travelling at a slower pace. We could see the introduction of some kind of traffic calming on London bridges